Opinion ID: 3065062
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Brady Disclosure of O’Melveny Memos and

Text: D’Intino’s Statements [17] We also reject Inzunza’s contention that a new trial is warranted because the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We review such allegations de novo. United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 725 (9th Cir. 2001). We do not “automatically require a new trial whenever a combing of the prosecutors’ files after the trial has disclosed evidence possibly useful to the defense but not likely to have changed the verdict . . . A finding of materiality of the evidence is required . . . .” Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085, 1096 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 677 (1985)) (alterations in original). The evidence in question—Galardi’s characterization of payments as campaign contributions, inconsistencies concerning business cards found at his club, and evidence of tax evasion—simply duplicated evidence presented. Its possible impact was so small that we cannot regard the evidence as material. This is not a case like Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 480-81 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc), where cumulative evidence was important to the jury’s determination of credibility of a crucial witness. Here, the additional evidence could not have affected the result of the trial. See Barker, 423 F.3d at 1096-98 (duplicate grounds for impeachment are not material under Brady). Therefore, the failure to disclose this evidence was not a Brady violation. Inzunza also argues that Brady required disclosure of statements by a non-testifying potential witness and co-defendant, UNITED STATES v. INZUNZA 12167 D’Intino, who also characterized payments to the councilmen as “campaign contributions.” As a matter of law, such statements are not exculpatory, see United States v. Montoya, 945 F.2d 1068, 1074 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by McCormick, 500 U.S. 257, and therefore they are not material under Brady. There is no merit to Inzunza’s claim that the government made an impermissible “side deal” with D’Intino, which, if known to the jury, might have cast doubt on the government’s credibility. Inzunza cites no authority for his argument that evidence of negotiations with non-testifying co-defendants, without more, is exculpatory. Brady is simply not implicated.