Opinion ID: 2978116
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion for New Hearing

Text: Clements’s final argument is that the Government failed to disclose evidence regarding alleged misconduct by Special Agent Lee Lucas, which resulted in a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or alternatively was newly discovered evidence, warranting a new trial under FED . R. CRIM . P. 33. As Clements explains, after his trial, an informant in an unrelated 2007 case involving Special Agent Lee Lucas recanted his testimony, which prompted the Government to drop charges in many cases and further precipitated investigations into both the informant and Agent Lucas. Those investigations culminated in an 18-count indictment against Agent Lucas on May 12, 2009, charging him with wrongful conduct in connection with two criminal trials in the Northern District of Ohio. Clements asserts that though information about Agent Lucas came to public light after his trial, the Government was aware of Lucas’s possible misconduct even before Clements was prosecuted. The district court denied Clements’s motion for a new trial, finding that evidence purporting to impeach Agent Lucas was immaterial in determining Clements’s guilt. This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence or Brady violations for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jones, 399 F.3d 640, 647 (6th Cir. 2005). -15-
In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the government violates the accused’s due process rights in suppressing evidence favorable to the accused “where [such evidence] is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 373 U.S. at 88. A Brady violation has three components: “The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999). Agent Lucas was involved in two stages of Clements’s prosecution. First, Agent Lucas, along with Detective Cudo, coordinated and executed a controlled purchase of cocaine, which was chronicled by Detective Cudo in his affidavit supporting the search warrant executed on Clements’s home. Second, Agent Lucas testified before the grand jury, which returned the two-count indictment against Clements.
As Clements explains, though Detective Cudo was the affiant, the affidavit supporting the search warrant references Agent Lucas, and if Detective Cudo knew of misconduct by Agent Lucas, then Detective Cudo submitted a reckless or fraudulent affidavit. Clements asserts that he would have used evidence of Agent Lucas’s misconduct to successfully challenge the validity of the warrant in a Franks hearing. The Government argues that information about Agent Lucas was unavailable when the Government was obligated to make Brady disclosures in response to Clements’s request for a Franks hearing. And even if that information was available, the Government argues it would not have been relevant or material in a Franks challenge because Detective Cudo was the affiant for -16- the warrant. Under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), Clements is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the validity of a search warrant only if he “makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and . . . the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. If, when the statements which were allegedly made falsely or with reckless disregard for the truth are set to one side, “there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required.” Id. at 171-72. Clements argues that Affiant Cudo may have known about purported misconduct by Agent Lucas, which would have resulted in a reckless or fraudulent affidavit. However, Clements does not point to a single statement in the affidavit that Affiant Cudo drafted recklessly or fraudulently. Clements also does not dispute that Affiant Cudo was present during the controlled purchase referenced in the affidavit and, as such, Affiant Cudo independently verified the information contained in the warrant. Further, the affidavit does not contain any statements made by Agent Lucas. Accordingly, any information allegedly impeaching Agent Lucas was immaterial for making the substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing and is, thereby, immaterial under Brady.
Clements also seeks a new hearing to determine whether the Government allowed Agent Lucas to testify before the grand jury even though the Government knew he had been falsely testifying in other trials. In support, Clements cites an alleged inconsistency between Agent Lucas’s sworn grand jury testimony and a statement made by Affiant Cudo in his affidavit attached to the -17- Government’s Surreply Brief opposing Clements’s motion for a new trial. Agent Lucas testified before the grand jury about the controlled purchase and execution of the search warrant, explaining that we did some research on this address, and we determined it was owned by . . . George Clements. So from that information that we had on September 14, 2006, we went and got a search warrant – Cuyahoga County search warrant, and on September 15th, the next day was a Friday, we ended up doing a search warrant at the residence. George Clements was sitting on the porch when we went up and did the search warrant. However, in Detective Cudo’s affidavit supporting the Government’s Surreply Brief, Detective Cudo stated that Agent Lucas only participated in the controlled purchase: The Police Report fairly and accurately describes the facts and circumstances of the execution of an authorized search warrant at [the Cleveland Home]. . . . The [] Police Report . . . makes no mention of DEA Special Agent Lee Lucas as he was not present during the execution of search warrant at defendant’s residence or defendant’s arrest. Special Agent Lucas’s involvement with the investigation of defendant’s activities was limited to the team of officers and agents required to conduct the controlled purchase which served as the basis of the search warrant. Clements argues that a new trial or evidentiary hearing is warranted to explore whether Agent Lucas meant to include himself as one of the officers executing the search warrant when using the pronoun “we.” The Government contends that, as evidenced by the police report and Detective Cudo’s sworn affidavit, Agent Lucas was not present during the execution of the search warrant. Further, because evidentiary rules are relaxed in grand jury proceedings, the Government explains that it customarily presents its entire case through the testimony of a single agent, just as happened here, who may include hearsay statements in his testimony about what actually occurred. Clements does not argue that anything in the police report describing the execution of the search warrant and Clements’s arrest was false. And as the district court found, the police report -18- contains no mention of Agent Lucas as being present during the execution of the warrant. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial or evidentiary hearing to clear up whether Agent Lucas meant to imply he was present during the search or whether he used the pronoun “we” as an “editorial we.” Clements alternatively seeks a new trial or dismissal of the indictment because Agent Lucas’s use of the word “we” before the grand jury in describing how and which police officers secured and executed the warrant was inconsistent with the police report and affidavit. Before the district court may dismiss the grand jury indictment based upon Agent Lucas’s purported inconsistent statements, Clements must show actual prejudice resulting from Agent Lucas’s statements. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988). Whether Agent Lucas testified that he was–or was not–one of the team who executed the search warrant and arrested Clements would have had little influence on the grand jury’s decision to indict, especially given that the trial jury subsequently found Clements guilty as charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. See Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 73 (1986) (holding that a petit jury’s guilty verdict for drug-related offenses established the probable cause to charge defendants with the offenses and rendered harmless any error in the grand jury’s charging decision that may have resulted when two law enforcement agents testified in tandem before a grand jury; further, societal costs of retrial were too substantial to justify setting aside verdict when the error had no effect on the outcome of the trial).
To the extent that Clements seeks a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence under FED . R. CRIM . P. 33, ordinarily Clements must establish that the new evidence: (1) was discovered after trial; (2) could not have been discovered earlier through due diligence; (3) is material and not -19- merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) would likely produce an acquittal. United States v. O’Dell, 805 F.2d 637, 640 (6th Cir. 1986). However, because Clements asserts that the new evidence at issue is exculpatory and the government failed to turn it over in violation of Brady, Clements need not show that the evidence probably would have resulted in acquittal. See id. at 641. Instead, the O’Dell test is “modified” such that Clements “must show only that the favorable evidence at issue was ‘material,’ with ‘materiality’ defined according to opinions interpreting the Brady doctrine.” United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346, 382 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). In the Brady context, evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 (1995) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)) (emphasis added). Materiality does not depend upon “whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434. Just as Clements fails to establish materiality for establishing a Brady violation, supra, he also fails to satisfy materiality under the modified standard for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Though the allegations against Agent Lucas, if ultimately proved true, are troubling, Agent Lucas only had a tangential connection to Clements’s prosecution, and the evidence purportedly impugning Agent Lucas’s credibility does not undermine the fairness of Clements’s trial.