Opinion ID: 2978116
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agent Lucas’s Grand Jury Testimony

Text: Clements also seeks a new hearing to determine whether the Government allowed Agent Lucas to testify before the grand jury even though the Government knew he had been falsely testifying in other trials. In support, Clements cites an alleged inconsistency between Agent Lucas’s sworn grand jury testimony and a statement made by Affiant Cudo in his affidavit attached to the -17- Government’s Surreply Brief opposing Clements’s motion for a new trial. Agent Lucas testified before the grand jury about the controlled purchase and execution of the search warrant, explaining that we did some research on this address, and we determined it was owned by . . . George Clements. So from that information that we had on September 14, 2006, we went and got a search warrant – Cuyahoga County search warrant, and on September 15th, the next day was a Friday, we ended up doing a search warrant at the residence. George Clements was sitting on the porch when we went up and did the search warrant. However, in Detective Cudo’s affidavit supporting the Government’s Surreply Brief, Detective Cudo stated that Agent Lucas only participated in the controlled purchase: The Police Report fairly and accurately describes the facts and circumstances of the execution of an authorized search warrant at [the Cleveland Home]. . . . The [] Police Report . . . makes no mention of DEA Special Agent Lee Lucas as he was not present during the execution of search warrant at defendant’s residence or defendant’s arrest. Special Agent Lucas’s involvement with the investigation of defendant’s activities was limited to the team of officers and agents required to conduct the controlled purchase which served as the basis of the search warrant. Clements argues that a new trial or evidentiary hearing is warranted to explore whether Agent Lucas meant to include himself as one of the officers executing the search warrant when using the pronoun “we.” The Government contends that, as evidenced by the police report and Detective Cudo’s sworn affidavit, Agent Lucas was not present during the execution of the search warrant. Further, because evidentiary rules are relaxed in grand jury proceedings, the Government explains that it customarily presents its entire case through the testimony of a single agent, just as happened here, who may include hearsay statements in his testimony about what actually occurred. Clements does not argue that anything in the police report describing the execution of the search warrant and Clements’s arrest was false. And as the district court found, the police report -18- contains no mention of Agent Lucas as being present during the execution of the warrant. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial or evidentiary hearing to clear up whether Agent Lucas meant to imply he was present during the search or whether he used the pronoun “we” as an “editorial we.” Clements alternatively seeks a new trial or dismissal of the indictment because Agent Lucas’s use of the word “we” before the grand jury in describing how and which police officers secured and executed the warrant was inconsistent with the police report and affidavit. Before the district court may dismiss the grand jury indictment based upon Agent Lucas’s purported inconsistent statements, Clements must show actual prejudice resulting from Agent Lucas’s statements. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988). Whether Agent Lucas testified that he was–or was not–one of the team who executed the search warrant and arrested Clements would have had little influence on the grand jury’s decision to indict, especially given that the trial jury subsequently found Clements guilty as charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. See Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 73 (1986) (holding that a petit jury’s guilty verdict for drug-related offenses established the probable cause to charge defendants with the offenses and rendered harmless any error in the grand jury’s charging decision that may have resulted when two law enforcement agents testified in tandem before a grand jury; further, societal costs of retrial were too substantial to justify setting aside verdict when the error had no effect on the outcome of the trial).