Opinion ID: 63
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Renewed Motion for a New Trial

Text: The government on November 9, 2005, released to the defense the original tapes of the March 13, March 30, and May 21 conversations, as well as a set of first-generation digital copies of those tapes that the FBI made. [13] After extensive examination, testing, and comparison by Brown's experts of the July 2002 copies, the Owen laptop copies, the November 2005 tapes, the FBI archive copies, the original Nagra SNST recorder, and the video tapes used to create the jury presentation, Brown presented his experts' findings in support of a renewed Rule 33 motion for a new trial that he filed with the District Court on September 28, 2006. According to Brown, these findings confirmed what [he] suspected all along: the government intentionally withheld exculpatory material from the defense and misrepresented the authenticity of the tapes furnished to the defense and incorporated in the Jury Presentation. App. at 1231. Specifically, Brown contended that the government took the original analog recordings of the Noonan conversations, recorded them onto a digital format, deleted material exculpatory to Brown, and recorded the edited versions of the conversations from the digital format back onto the original analog reels. The government then presented modified analog tapes to the defense as originals (the Harrisburg tapes and the November 2005 tapes) or as the source of the generational copies that were presented to the defense (the July 2002 tapes and the FBI Archive copies) and used to create the jury presentation. Additionally, Brown averred in his motion that the November 2005 tape of the March 30 conversation is far more audible than previously disclosed recordings of the conversation, and that the newly audible portions of that conversation contained exculpatory material. App. at 1231-32. Brown alleged that the government violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), [14] and the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, [15] by failing to disclose a full transcript or an audible version of the March 30 conversation. In support of his renewed motion, Brown submitted new reports and affidavits from Reames, Allen, Owen, and a forensic video expert, Grant Fredericks. These submissions included two new transcriptions of the March 30 conversation, one prepared by Reames (the Reames transcript) and another prepared by Allen (the Allen transcript). Brown claimed these transcripts revealed exculpatory material not disclosed previously. Specifically, Brown argued that both transcripts revealed statements contradicting Noonan's trial testimony about a computer the SEC subpoenaed that allegedly had been used to create backdated severance letters. At trial, Noonan testified that Brown had stated in the March 30 conversation that the SEC will never get [the] computer now. It is in the Atlantic. App. at 1249. In the Reames and Allen transcripts, however, this statement does not appear and it is Noonan who first mentions the Atlantic Ocean. Reames transcribed the relevant exchange as follows: FRANKLIN BROWN: There are [..][..] working on it. TIMOTHY NOONAN: In the Atlantic Ocean, huh? FRANKLIN BROWN: That was just an expression on his part. TIMOTHY NOONAN: I understand that. App. at 1426. The conversation is transcribed similarly in the Allen transcript: TIMOTHY: OK Gottcha. (inaudible) FRANKLIN: Wo' What (inaudible) TIMOTHY: It's in the Atlantic Ocean!!!(pause). FRANKLIN: That was just an expression on his part. That's the equivalent..(inaudible) TIMOTHY: I understand that App. at 2633. Brown also claimed that the Reames transcript contained Brown's previously undisclosed statements encouraging Noonan to be forthright in his discussions with the government. On appeal, however, Brown appears to concede that these statements were urging Noonan to be candid with Noonan's defense attorney, and at least were not urging Noonan directly to be candid with the government investigators. See Appellant's Op. Br. at 61. In Allen's reports and affidavits submitted with Brown's motion, Allen explained his testing methodology and noted a number of anomalies on the different recordings. Allen's findings left him unable to eliminate the possibility that the November 2005 tapes were not recorded contemporaneously with the events taking place in them, or that the recordings originated from a digital source instead of the analog recording device that the government purportedly used. App. at 1272-73; App. at 2571. Additionally, Allen concluded with a high degree of certainty that the July 2002 copies and the Owen laptop copies differed considerably from the November 2005 tapes and the FBI archive copies, such that it would be reasonable to conclude that the November 2005 and FBI archive copies were, in fact, different recordings than the earlier disclosed copies. App. at 1273-74; App. at 2572-73. Owen's materials contained similar findings. He concluded that the November 2005 tapes showed evidence of previous digitization inconsistent with an analog recording. Owen also was not able to eliminate the possibility that the Owen laptop copies and FBI archive copies originated from different sources. App. at 2675. Allen and Owen also concluded that the video tapes that the government provided of the Noonan conversations contained evidence of editing. Fredericks, in his affidavit, concluded that the video tapes the government provided to the defense were accurate originals, but that they had been converted into digital files and edited in order to create the jury presentation in such a manner that the resultant product was an inaccurate and visually impaired reproduction of the original video tapes. App. at 1468. Fredericks also concluded that the [a]udio to video alignment of the DVD Jury Presentation was misaligned to such a degree that when the mouths of the men were moving, what was being heard by the jury, was not what they were actually saying at that exact time. App. at 1468. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing on Brown's renewed Rule 33 motion on May 14 and 15, 2007. Over these two days, the District Court heard testimony from defense experts Owen and Allen, the government's FBI expert David Snyder, as well as from other persons including FBI case agents who had worked on the Rite Aid investigation. The government then sought an adjournment to seek discovery of the defense experts' test results and the District Court adjourned the hearing to allow additional discovery. The hearing resumed on August 13 and 14, 2007, and at that time the District Court again heard testimony from witnesses including Owen, Allen, Snyder, and Paul Ginsberg, a forensic audio consultant, who presented expert testimony on behalf of the government. Over the course of the four days of hearings, the District Court heard testimony from a total of nine witnesses and accepted 27 exhibits into evidence. On February 22, 2008, the District Court entered an order denying Brown's renewed motion for a new trial. In its comprehensive accompanying Memorandum, the Court detailed the history of the various recordings made of the Noonan conversations as well as the evidence the numerous experts proffered, and concluded that the tapes the government provided were authentic, and that the government did not submit false evidence or perjured testimony to the jury. The Court also found that the Reames and Allen transcripts of the March 30 conversation did not contain exculpatory or impeaching information, and it therefore held that the government had not committed a Brady or Jencks Act violation in delaying the delivery of an audible recording or transcript of that conversation. The Court also concluded that a new trial was unwarranted because Brown's supposed new evidencea transcript of the previously inaudible March 30 statementswas not in fact newly discovered. See United States v. Brown, No. 1:02-CR-00146-2, 2008 WL 510126, at  (M.D.Pa. Feb.22, 2008).