Opinion ID: 2804143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brady/Napue Claims

Text: Bonfilio first argues that she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Kitay “testified falsely that she had no agreement with the [G]overnment concerning the possibility of a sentence reduction in exchange for her testimony” at Bonfilio’s trial. The Government argues Bonfilio’s allegations are speculative, as she has presented no evidence to establish the existence of an undisclosed deal. Finally, it cites to Kitay’s plea agreement, included in the parties’ joint appendix, which contains no promise of leniency in exchange for her testimony. Assuming an agreement between the Government and Kitay did exist, the Government’s failure to disclose that deal in advance of trial would have violated the Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), which requires 3 the Government to disclose potentially exculpatory material to the defendant. Moreover, the Government’s failure to correct Kitay’s testimony denying the agreement would have independently violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959), which prohibits the prosecution from allowing false testimony “to go uncorrected when it appears.” Rather than initially bringing these claims to the attention of the District Court through a motion for a new trial or otherwise, Bonfilio raises the matters for the first time on appeal. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to depart from our general rule of not considering an issue raised for the first time on appeal, particularly given that the evidence cited by the parties concerning Kitay’s plea agreement lies outside the appellate record. Cf. Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Harrigan, 791 F.2d 34, 36 (3d Cir. 1986) (“The materials in [the] appendix were not presented to the trial court and are outside of the record in this case.”). Although we decline to address this claim in the first instance,1 our decision is without prejudice to any action Bonfilio may wish to take in the District Court, such as filing a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e.g., United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985, 997 (3d Cir. 1985).