Opinion ID: 51090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government’s Alleged Giglio Violation

Text: Valdes argues that his ability to impeach the confidential informant was improperly limited. He asserts that, under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 1763 (1972), the Government was required to provide impeachment information regarding the confidential informant but failed to do so.5 “In order to succeed on a Giglio challenge, the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony, or failed to correct what he 5 Valdes further argues (1) that he should have been allowed to question Government witnesses about the informant’s bias and motivation and (2) that the district court prevented him from impeaching the informant by ruling that, should Valdes choose to call the informant as a witness, the informant would not be designated as a hostile witness and thus Valdes could not ask her leading questions. These arguments are without merit because the informant did not testify, and “[t]he law is clearly established that one may not introduce evidence to impeach a witness who does not testify.” United States v. Williams, 954 F.2d 668, 672 (11th Cir. 1992). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to limit the scope of a party’s cross examination, see United States v. Tokars, 95 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1996); we find no abuse of discretion here. 5 subsequently learned was false testimony, and that the falsehood was material.” United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Giglio, the Government is required to turn over to a criminal defendant any impeachment evidence that is likely to cast doubt on the reliability of a witness whose testimony may be determinative of guilt or innocence. United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1226 n.16, 1253 (11th Cir. 2003). In this case, the Government had no Giglio obligation with regard to the confidential informant. Giglio requires the Government to provide impeachment information about testifying witnesses, and the informant did not testify as a witness at trial. See Jordan, 316 F.3d at 1226 n.16, 1253; see also Smith v. Kemp, 715 F.2d 1459, 1467 (11th Cir. 1983). The Government’s refusal to disclose to Valdes impeachment evidence regarding its confidential informant did not violate Giglio.6