Opinion ID: 158518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Brady Violations Relating to Losses Attributable to Schweitzer Checks

Text: 31 Hanzlicek also contends that he was prevented from developing effective cross-examination of Agent Canady because the government failed to furnish a summary list, as ordered by the district court, of victims who had received Mr. Schweitzer's fraudulent checks and information regarding the cashing of those checks. The government did not turn over the list to defense counsel until after the trial. When asked during oral argument why the list was not turned over to defense counsel as ordered, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) responded, It would have been better practice. . . . I don't know why [the list was not turned over]. . . . It was a mistake and negligence on my part. After the trial, and before sentencing the defendants, the trial judge stated: [M]any of these checks on this 1.8 million dollar list that the agent testified that there had been losses on, at least it appears that there was no loss, there was in fact no loss at all. In addition, at oral argument, the AUSA admitted that there is no evidence that the checks actually had been cashed. In upholding Hanzlicek's conviction, the district court found that the introduction of evidence of $1.8 million in losses was not material to the case. 32 It is certainly troubling that the government never produced the list of Schweitzer checks resulting in the claimed $1.8 million paid. Nevertheless, this court cannot conclude that the government's failure to produce the list resulted in a violation of Brady. Hanzlicek argues that he made a specific request for such information, and that the list of checks would have enabled him to impeach Agent Canady. To establish a Brady violation, Hanzlicek must demonstrate that evidence was (1) suppressed by the prosecution, (2) favorable to him, and (3) material, meaning that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the result of the trial would have been different. See Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086, 1112 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1266 (1999). Materiality is gauged on the basis of the whole record, considering the undisclosed evidence collectively. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 436 (1995). A specific request for information may lower the threshold for materiality. See Smith v. Secretary of N.M. Dep't of Corrections, 50 F.3d 801, 826 (10th Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the evidence at issue here is not material because it does not create a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. Stated another way, [t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish 'materiality' in the constitutional sense. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-10 (1976). In the context of what the government was required to prove, the significance of whether banks actually cashed these checks is of far less importance than suggested by Hanzlicek. 33