Opinion ID: 858503
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: E-mail Re Isaac Zimmerman Charges

Text: [¶23] The first allegedly suppressed evidence we address is a December 8, 2010, e-mail the prosecutor sent to Isaac Zimmerman’s attorney. The prosecutor attached to the e-mail a criminal warrant for Mr. Zimmerman’s arrest and a draft criminal information charging Mr. Zimmerman with reckless endangering and with accessory before the fact to kidnapping and felonious restraint. The e-mail included the following message: Against the wishes of the Sublette County Sheriff’s Office, I chose not to prosecute Mr. Zimmerman due to Mr. Zimmerman’s cooperation with the State, and my belief Mr. Zimmerman would make a favorable witness at trial against Mr. Kovach. It now appears I was wrong about Mr. Zimmerman’s willingness to assist in this matter. Mr. Zimmerman was a clear accessory before the fact to kidnapping and felonious restraint, as well as committing an act of reckless endangerment by knowingly transporting a victim for Mr. Kovach’s continued physical abuse and terrorization. I chose not to charge Mr. Zimmerman based on a totality of circumstances, and those circumstances have now changed. Now that Mr. Zimmerman has changed his mind about 7 lending assistance to the State, I have changed mine about charging him with the crimes he committed. Will you accept service on behalf of your client? [¶24] By a post-trial affidavit dated January 17, 2012, Isaac Zimmerman stated, “After receiving this information from the Sublette County Attorney, I decided to meet with the Sublette County Attorney without counsel and cooperate with the Sublette County [Attorney] as he wanted.” [¶25] Kovach contends that this e-mail was material impeachment evidence because it could have been used to impeach Isaac Zimmerman’s testimony by showing that he was pressured to cooperate with the prosecutor and testify favorably for the State. Although the e-mail certainly shows that Mr. Zimmerman was under pressure to testify favorably for the State, we do not agree with Kovach that the prosecutor’s failure to turn the e-mail over to Kovach resulted in a Brady violation. The record shows that Kovach knew before trial that Mr. Zimmerman had been threatened with prosecution, and the record further shows that the e-mail would have been nothing more than cumulative evidence of those threats. [¶26] We note at the outset that, whatever pressure may have initially been brought to bear on Isaac Zimmerman for his cooperation, the State did not follow through on its efforts to compel Mr. Zimmerman to testify as a prosecution witness. During the trial, Mr. Zimmerman was called as a defense witness, not as a State witness, and as indicated above, Mr. Zimmerman’s testimony matched Kovach’s version of events in many respects. [¶27] As to the prosecution’s efforts to secure Isaac Zimmerman’s favorable testimony, the record is far from silent. Mr. Zimmerman testified on direct examination by defense counsel: Q. Okay. Now Mr. Zimmerman, you and I have spoken. Have you spoken to anybody else about this matter? A. I spoke to the officers and the county attorney and the investigator. Q. And how many times did you speak to them? A. Five times total I believe. Q. Okay. Have you been promised anything for your testimony here today? A. No. Q. Have you been threatened about your testimony? A. Yes, I have. 8 Q. And how so? A. I was threatened with charges against me as well. Q. Okay. And how did that happen? A. I guess I wasn’t giving them what they wanted to hear. Q. And who made those threats to you? A. I believe it was [the prosecutor’s investigator]. Q. Anybody else? A. I believe [the prosecutor] also said that, you know – I don’t believe he – I take that back. I don’t think [the prosecutor] actually made any threats, he just said there was some pressure for me to be charged. [¶28] On cross-examination by the prosecutor, Isaac Zimmerman again testified to the threatened prosecution against him: Q. Okay. You and I have spoke several times; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that’s what you just testified to? A. Yes. Q. Now [defense counsel] has indicated that you were threatened with prosecution; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And was that ever explained to you what charges you would be facing if you were not cooperative? A. Yes. Q. And what charges were those? A. Accessory. Q. Okay. Now do you recall driving a beaten man to Travis Kovach’s camp at Travis Kovach’s direction? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall what I told you as to why I was not going to prosecute you? A. Yes. Q. And what was that? A. Because you didn’t think I had anything to do with it. Q. Does it refresh your recollection that I told you I didn’t want to ruin a young man’s life because he didn’t do the right thing? A. Yes. 9 Q. Now you were scared during this whole ordeal, weren’t you? A. Yes. Q. And in hindsight you probably would have done things differently, wouldn’t you? A. Yes. Q. You would have tried to help those old men, wouldn’t you? A. Yes. Q. But you didn’t do those things? A. No. Q. And why? A. I didn’t know what to do. Q. It was out of control, wasn’t it? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Kovach was out of control, wasn’t he? A. Yes. [¶29] On further cross-examination by the prosecutor, Isaac Zimmerman adhered to his testimony that Kovach did not fire his weapon and it was only because of pressure by the prosecutor’s investigator that he ever said otherwise: Q. And so what did you tell [the prosecutor’s investigator] on November 10th? A. I was pretty angry at that point because we had been talking on for quite awhile and I just told him what he wanted to hear. Q. Oh, okay. And what was it that he wanted to hear? A. He wanted to hear that there had been a gun fired. Q. And you told him he probably fired a shot, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you told him he probably had the gun out, correct? A. Correct. Q. But you’re now saying that was only because you were telling [the prosecutor’s investigator] what he wanted to hear? A. I was getting a lot of pressure from [the prosecutor’s investigator]. 10 Q. You got a lot of pressure from [defense counsel]? A. No. Q. Or Mr. Kovach? A. No. [¶30] Finally, on re-direct examination by defense counsel, Isaac Zimmerman again insisted that Kovach had not fired his weapon and that any statements to the contrary were the result of pressure by the prosecution. Q. Now [the prosecutor] had asked you about this gun issue and he had you read a statement. Prior to that time had you already given two statements to law enforcement? A. Yes. Q. You had already given a statement to my investigator? A. Yes. Q. In all of those statements did you say you did not hear the gun? A. I did. Q. Okay. And actually in the statement that [the prosecutor] read to you earlier on, in that statement you told [the prosecutor’s investigator] that you didn’t hear the gun either; isn’t that right? A. Correct. Q. A n d i t w a s n’t u n t i l [ t h e p r o s e c u tor’s investigator] threatened you that you told him what he wanted to hear? [PROSECUTOR]: Objection, leading. COURT: Sustained. Q. Why did you eventually say to [the prosecutor’s investigator] that, you know, “I think that’s what happened”? A. Because of the pressure that they were putting on me. [¶31] Isaac Zimmerman’s trial testimony clearly informed the jury that he was threatened with prosecution and that he felt pressured to cooperate with the prosecutor and testify favorably for the State. The prosecutor’s e-mail to Mr. Zimmerman’s attorney would have been cumulative evidence to the same effect. See Chauncey, ¶ 21, 127 P.3d at 24 (“Where, as in the instant case, a witness for the State has been exhaustively impeached, both generally and as to the specific issue addressed by the suppressed evidence, we do not believe that one additional piece of cumulative information makes the verdict unworthy of confidence.”). Additionally, defense counsel’s examination of 11 Mr. Zimmerman shows that Kovach knew of the threats in time to use them during the trial. Any doubt concerning Kovach’s access to that information was further resolved by the testimony of both Mr. Zimmerman and defense counsel during the evidentiary hearing on Kovach’s new trial motion. Mr. Zimmerman testified: Q. You were very cooperative with [defense counsel] through the entire trial; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And very cooperative with [defense counsel] prior to trial; is that correct? A. Correct. .... Q. Now did you ever tell [defense counsel] that you had seen or heard of an e-mail with a criminal information from my office? A. Yes, I believe I did. Q. When did you tell him that? A. I don’t know. Q. Did you bring that to his attention after the trial was over? A. I think it was before, but I’m not sure. Q. Now he actually brought that to your attention; is that correct? After the trial he contacted you and said, “Mr. Zimmerman, I know that there is an affidavit” – or, excuse me, “an e-mail and some charging information,” he brought that to your attention; isn’t that correct? A. Yes, yes. Q. Okay. You didn’t bring that to his attention? A. No. Q. How many days after trial was it that he brought that to your attention? A. I don’t know, I don’t recall. Maybe a week, maybe two weeks. Q. But you didn’t contact him out of the blue and tell him about it; is that correct? A. No. [¶32] Kovach’s counsel testified: Your Honor, I mean – let me put it in the form of testimony. Mr. Zimmerman had approached me after being interviewed several times and said that he was feeling threatened and was there anything that I could do for him and 12 I said no, I said I couldn’t, but I said I could give him some names of some lawyers in Pinedale. [¶33] We are satisfied that the prosecutor’s failure to provide the Isaac Zimmerman e- mail to defense counsel did not result in a Brady violation. The evidence was cumulative, and defense counsel had information relating to the threats against Zimmerman before trial. See Thomas, ¶ 18, 131 P.3d at 353 (defendant failed to show a Brady violation where evidence was available and used during trial).