Opinion ID: 771294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-Trial Misconduct.

Text: Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the prosecution's suppression of requested evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. A Brady violation will be found if: 1) the prosecutor suppresses the evidence after a request by the defendant; 2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and 3) the evidence was material to his defense. See United States v. Steffen, 641 F.2d 591, 594 (8 th Cir. 1981). Omitted evidence is material where it 'creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist.' Id. (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976)). Wadlington contends that the Government violated Brady by withholding the notes from initial interviews with government witnesses Luwanda Kelly, Tina Bostic, Raashaan Wilkins, and Terrance Hood and by withholding the DEA file of prosecution witness Sherman Bell, which he believes contains impeaching and exculpatory information. While Wadlington admits that he was aware of the substance of the witnesses' statements at the time of trial, he argues that without having the actual notes he was so limited in his ability to cross-examine that he was denied due process. The District Court disagreed and denied Wadlington's motion to dismiss on this basis. We affirm. Because Wadlington was already aware of the substance of the government witnesses' exculpatory and impeaching statements prior to trial, he cannot establish a Brady violation. See id. at 595 (noting that Brady does not apply to evidence already known by the defendant). As for Sherman Bell's DEA file, Wadlington has failed to establish that it actually included impeaching or exculpatory statements. We have made clear that [m]ere speculation that materials may contain exculpatory evidence is not . . . sufficient to sustain a Brady claim. United States v. Van Brocklin, 115 F.3d 587, 594 (8 th Cir. 1997). Even if a Brady violation could be found, we are not convinced that the result of the trial would have been different had the material been made available. Although Wadlington was not provided the notes in question, he was aware of their substance and was thus able to undermine the credibility of each witness on cross-examination. We do not believe that having the actual notes would have generated such compelling cross-examination as to render an acquittal more likely.