Opinion ID: 199502
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Luz Marina Giraldo

Text: As to Giraldo's testimony, González raises at least a colorable claim that, if her testimony was perjured, then the government presented testimony it knew to be perjured.1 González 1 A finding that there is a colorable claim the government knowingly used perjured testimony is the necessary predicate for asking whether the Strickler/Kyle/Bagley standard applies. Here, the district court did not make an express finding about whether Giraldo's testimony was perjured, and thus did not find whether the government's use of the -11- offered the sworn statement of a co-inmate, Daniel Ortiz Medina, that Medina had overheard Giraldo telling González that the prosecutor had pressured her to testify to details about González's involvement in drug trafficking, even though that testimony was false, and that the prosecutor told Giraldo that she would receive twenty-five years in prison if she refused to so testify but would receive only a five year sentence if she cooperated. The matter of perjury is not a matter of inference. Rather, the material witness herself is reported to have said that she was pressured by the government to give false testimony. An affidavit from a second inmate, Ernesto Padilla Almestica, recounted the same conversation. Because González makes a colorable claim that the government knowingly used perjured testimony by Giraldo, we apply the Strickler/Kyle/Bagley standard and ask whether there is any reasonable likelihood or probability that the proffered evidence that Giraldo's testimony was false could have affected the jury's judgment. We think not. First, the evidence of perjury is itself weak; it depends on a) the credibility of two convicted felons, and b) believing that Giraldo, testimony, if perjured, was knowing. (We have been informed that Giraldo had been deported by the time of the new trial motion and was unavailable to the court.) Instead the court concluded that González failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that Giraldo's testimony would result in acquittal. Thus, we cannot avoid the question. Cf. Josleyn, 206 F.3d at 155 n.11 (where the district court expressly finds that a defendant has not shown the statements to be perjury, court need not further consider application of lower standard). -12- having to face González after he was convicted, was not simply making excuses based on a fiction. Second, the sheer volume of evidence of González's drug trafficking and money laundering activities rules out any reasonable likelihood that the jury's ultimate decision was affected by Giraldo's testimony. This was not a close case. Several members of González's organization besides Giraldo testified about numerous occasions during 1991 and 1994 on which González imported drugs from Colombia into Puerto Rico and directed the distribution of those drugs in Puerto Rico and New York. Numerous law enforcement agents corroborated specific events of these drug importation and distribution activities. Moreover, González's guilt was supported by documentary evidence and out of his own mouth; there were tape recordings of González making inculpatory statements about his drug trafficking and money laundering activities. We also note that Giraldo's alleged recantation indicates that she lied about González's importation of cocaine, but that she was, indeed, involved in González's marijuana trafficking activities; thus, the damage done by Giraldo's purportedly false testimony is limited to the effect of her testimony about the extent of González's activities, and does not put into doubt that González was in fact involved in drug trafficking. Viewing the evidence as a whole (including the other Brady errors discussed later), there is no reasonable likelihood or probability that false testimony, if any, by -13- Giraldo caused the jury to reach an outcome that it might not otherwise have reached.