Opinion ID: 171981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brady Challenges

Text: In Brady the Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Brady's holding has since been extended to require disclosure by the prosecutor even when the defendant has not requested the withheld material or has made only a general request, see United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and to cover impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, see United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Defendants contend that the government violated the Brady doctrine by failing to disclose what they term a limited forensic examination by Robert Foley, USSD's outside auditor, of USSD's paving and hauling contracts with Mitchell Construction. Erickson Aplt. Br. at 35. Mr. Mitchell also contends that the government was required to disclose a document denoted Exhibit 4-B, an audit memorandum written by Foley concerning the Hamaker Bottoms contract. The district court denied Defendants' January 2008 motion for a new trial based on these alleged nondisclosures. To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove that the prosecution suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable to the defense, and the evidence was material. See United States v. DeLuna, 10 F.3d 1529, 1534 (10th Cir. 1993). A Brady claim fails if the existence of favorable evidence is merely suspected. That the evidence exists must be established by the defendant. See United States v. Lopez, 372 F.3d 1207, 1209-11 (10th Cir.2004) (because defendant failed to establish that government had promised leniency to prosecution witnesses, there could be no Brady violation in government's failure to turn over documentation of such promises); United States v. Warren, 454 F.3d 752, 759 (7th Cir.2006) (defendant failed to establish existence of any document withheld by government, so his Brady claim fails to get off the ground.). And the defendant must also show that the favorable evidence was in the possession or control of the government. See United States v. Gardner, 244 F.3d 784, 788 (10th Cir.2001); Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998) ( Brady obviously does not apply to information that is not wholly within the control of the prosecution.); United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 489 F.3d 60, 67 (1st Cir.2007) (For Brady to operate, the government not only must know about undisclosed evidence but also must have custody or control of that evidence.). The prosecutor herself need not have, or even know of, the evidence if one of her agents has it. See United States v. Velarde, 485 F.3d 553, 559 (10th Cir.2007) (defendant can base a Brady claim on government investigator's failure to disclose even when prosecutor is ignorant of the evidence). Furthermore, a defendant is not denied due process by the government's nondisclosure of evidence if the defendant knew of the evidence anyway. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1256 (10th Cir.2003) ([T]here can be no suppression by the state of evidence already known by and available to the defendant prior to trial.) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Quintanilla, 193 F.3d 1139, 1149 (10th Cir. 1999) (If a defendant already has a particular piece of evidence, the prosecution's disclosure of that evidence is considered cumulative, rendering the suppressed evidence immaterial.); Coe, 161 F.3d at 344 (no Brady violation is possible when defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information or when the evidence is available to him from another source, such as a witness to whom he had as much access as the police. (internal quotation marks omitted)). While we ordinarily review a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion, when the motion is based on an alleged Brady violation, we review the district court's decision de novo. United States v. LaVallee, 439 F.3d 670, 698 (10th Cir.2006). To the extent that the Brady analysis turns on historical fact, however, we accept the fact finding of the district court unless clearly erroneous. See Lopez, 372 F.3d at 1210. We can affirm on a ground not relied upon by the district court if the record requires affirmance on that ground and it is not unfair to the appellant to rely on that ground. See Maldonado v. City of Altus, 433 F.3d 1294, 1302-03 (10th Cir.2006), overruled on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). We hold that Defendants have failed to show a Brady violation. We first address the forensic examination by auditor Foley. To establish the existence of this examination, Defendants point to the minutes of the December 28, 1999, meeting of the Uintah County Commission. The minutes reflect that Foley's firm was hired at that meeting to conduct an audit. According to the minutes: [The audit would be] looking to see if all the reimbursements are appropriate that are received from the state and reimbursements from the Special Service District to the Road Department, that they are allocated to the right places, and that all the billings from the Road Department to special service district is correct and that when the money comes back into the clerk-auditors office that it is accounted for in the appropriate account. [The audit would also] review contracts for the services regarding asphalt and gravel between vendors and Uintah County. Commissioner Swain questioned between the Special Service District also? Commissioner Harrison said yes, and it will move into the asphalt areas. R. Vol. III Doc. 168-4 at 4 (full capitalization omitted). Defendants have not shown, however, that the government obtained a copy of the audit or otherwise knew of its contents. Although they correctly point out that FBI Agent Rex Ashdown attended the December 28 meeting at which the audit was apparently ordered, they have presented no evidence that Ashdown obtained the audit or learned of its conclusions. In addition, Defendants have failed to show that the audit contained any material evidence favorable to them. We cannot discern from the meeting minutes (or anything else in the record) whether the audit encompassed the contracts or the change orders of interest in this case. Defendants' only evidence of the contents of the audit is a letter from a former Uintah County commissioner to defense counsel, which states that the audit showed absolutely no improprieties. R. Vol. III Doc. 168-2 at 2. (The letter also states that FBI Agent Ashdown was aware of the audit but it does not assert that he knew the results of the audit, or how the letter's author had personal knowledge of Ashdown's awareness.) [1] But the letter is unsworn and therefore cannot support a motion for a new trial under Brady. See Velarde, 485 F.3d at 560 (defendant is not even entitled to evidentiary hearing on new-trial motion brought under Brady unless defendant presents admissible evidence that would, if believed, warrant relief). We note that Defendants did not seek additional discovery, or even an evidentiary hearing, to support their Brady claim. See id. at 559-60. Thus, Defendants have failed to show that the government controlled or possessed the findings of the limited forensic examination or that the examination provided material, favorable information. Because the government argued in district court this ground for rejecting the Brady claim, it is fair to affirm on this ground even though the district court did not rely on it. See Maldonado, 433 F.3d at 1302-03. The second Brady challenge is raised on appeal only by Mr. Mitchell. We reject his challenge because the district court did not clearly err in finding that he had been aware of and had access to Exhibit 4-B before trial. Exhibit 4-B was an audit memorandum written by CPA Foley regarding the Hamaker Bottoms contract. It reports what McCurdy told him regarding her discovery of the change order. Mr. Mitchell contends that it would have assisted his defense because it contains no mention that she saw Ms. Erickson prepare the change order or saw Ms. Erickson and Mr. Mitchell sign it, which was her testimony at trial. The district court rejected this Brady claim on the ground that the exhibit was available to Mr. Mitchell by the time of trial. As we have stated, if the defendant had the evidence at trial, he has no Brady claim. See Quintanilla, 193 F.3d at 1149. The court relied on Ms. Erickson's pro se motion for a new trial, which attached Exhibit 4-B. Although Ms. Erickson repeatedly asserts in her motion that evidence favorable to her was withheld, she uses that term to include evidence that the district court ruled inadmissible and evidence known to her attorney but not used at trial. The motion complains that some evidence was withheld by the prosecution and investigators, but Exhibit 4-B is not among the items that she alleges to have been so withheld. Her comments regarding the contents of the exhibit never include an assertion that the document had only recently come to her attention. To the contrary, she says that most of the evidence discussed in her motion is not `new' evidence. R. Vol. III Doc. 132 at 14. Mr. Mitchell's brief on appeal contains no argument disputing that Ms. Erickson had Exhibit 4-B by the time of trial. Furthermore, the record contains additional evidence that virtually compels the district court's finding. Mr. Mitchell acknowledges that Exhibit 4-B is discussed at length in an April 2001 letter to Foley from Mr. Mitchell's lawyer at the time, Bruce Reading. The end of the letter recites cc: Gil Mitchell. United States v. Mitchell, No. 2:05-CR-00521-TS (Position Statement Regarding the Presentence Investigation Report & Sentencing Mem., Ex. A at 10 (Dec. 21, 2007)). Mr. Mitchell suggests that the letter is unimportant because the fact that the letter discusses Exhibit 4-B does not mean the government produced Exhibit 4-B as required by Brady. Mitchell Reply Br. at 7. But he is mistaken. To repeat, a defendant is not deprived of due process by the government's failure to disclose information if the defendant has obtained the information through other means. See Spears, 343 F.3d at 1256; Coe, 161 F.3d at 344. We also note that the prosecutor represented to the district court that Exhibit 4-B was among documents in the open-file discovery available to Defendants before trial. Such representations are entitled to almost as much weight as an affidavit. As we have explained: To reject the [federal prosecutor]'s representation is not only to ignore the presumption of regularity ... but to disregard the [prosecutor]'s duty as an attorney. Attorneys are officers of the court, and when they address the judge solemnly upon a matter before the court, their declarations are virtually made under oath. United States v. Deberry, 430 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 486, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978)). [2] In sum, Mr. Mitchell has not shown that the district court clearly erred when it determined that he had known of and had access to Exhibit 4-B before trial. Accordingly, his Brady claim with respect to this piece of evidence fails.