Opinion ID: 742499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to produce discovery and new evidence

Text: 27 Trapp claims the government violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(D) by failing to deliver all requested discovery. Here again, Trapp claims the evidence purportedly withheld was relevant to credibility of witnesses. He asserts the following matters were withheld by the government: 1) evidence of a felony check charge against a witness; 2) evidence of prior state charges against a witness; 3) dismissal of state charges against the same witness; and 4) results of a witness' polygraph test. 28 According to Trapp, the government's failure to disclose the witness' complete criminal records and polygraph test violates Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). [C]laims that the prosecution violated Brady, including the determination of whether suppressed evidence was material, are reviewed de novo. United States v. Hughes, 33 F.3d 1248, 1251 (10th Cir.1994). To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must establish: 1) that the prosecution suppressed evidence; 2) that the evidence was favorable to the accused; and 3) that the evidence was material. Id. 29 Trapp presented no evidence to establish the government suppressed any evidence. Trapp merely states that the government should have turned over all evidence of an exculpatory nature with respect to the witnesses. Counsel's cross examination of those witnesses, however, indicates that Trapp knew of the criminal charges against the witnesses. 30 With respect to Trapp's claim that the government suppressed the results of a witness' polygraph test, it is true the government did not disclose those results. The government, however, states it had no intention of introducing the evidence and the test results were in fact never introduced. Under those conditions, there was no Brady violation. See United States v. Hall, 805 F.2d 1410, 1417-18 (10th Cir.1986) (finding when government does not intend to introduce results of polygraph at trial, the charts and reports [are] not discoverable under the provisions of Rule 16(a)(1)(D) Fed.R.Crim.P.). 31 Trapp also seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The allegedly newly discovered evidence must be more than impeaching or cumulative; it must be material to the issues involved; it must be such that it would probably produce an acquittal; and a new trial is not warranted if the new evidence is such that, with reasonable diligence, it could have been discovered and produced at the original trial. United States v. Youngpeter, 986 F.2d 349, 356 (10th Cir.1993). 32 The newly discovered evidence is a witness's statement that he was going to lie about everything to just hang J.W. Trapp. R. at 1469. Trapp gives no explanation why he could not have discovered this evidence with reasonable diligence prior to or during the trial. More important, Trapp makes no showing that this evidence is material. He argues that the evidence would have been used for impeachment purposes and states that [i]f the jury had known the true circumstances surrounding the witnesses, the jury would have acquitted Trapp as to predicate acts six and seven. This alone is insufficient. According to Youngpeter, the newly discovered evidence must be more than impeaching. 986 F.2d at 356. Trapp is therefore not entitled to a new trial.