Opinion ID: 719368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gary Kammerud's Testimony

Text: 11 On appeal, Hamilton renews his argument that new evidence shows that Alan Wildman acted as a government agent when he obtained information about Hamilton's defense strategy and then passed on this information to the FBI. This new evidence, Hamilton argues, consists of testimony given on November 17, 1992 by inmate Gary Kammerud, a government informant who testified in an unrelated proceeding, United States v. Proulx, 92-CR-73-C. In that proceeding (also before Judge Crabb), Kammerud, who had become acquainted with Wildman at the Dane County Jail, testified that a cellmate (who Hamilton insists can only be identified as Wildman) had information about certain Wisconsin murders and bank robberies, and that the cellmate in fact had spoken about this information with the FBI. 2 Hamilton argues that Kammerud's testimony in Proulx proves that up until the date Kammerud testified--November 17, 1992--Wildman had been gathering information on Hamilton, and that Wildman had already turned over some of this information to the government. As a result, Hamilton reasons, Wildman and others perjured themselves at Hamilton's evidentiary hearing when Wildman denied being an agent of the government. 12
13 To review the district court's determination that Alan Wildman was not a government agent when he furnished the FBI with information obtained from Hamilton, we first examine the chronology of Wildman's relationship with the government. In early November 1992, Wildman and his attorney Kris Thomas attended a debriefing session with Assistant United States Attorney Chris Van Wagner and two agents from the Dunn County Sheriff's Department and the West Central Drug Unit. Van Wagner testified that he told Wildman to provide truthful and accurate historical information in response to the agents' questions about Wildman's own activities. Attorney Thomas corroborated Van Wagner's account, asserting that the debriefing provided all the information about all the criminal activity [Wildman] was aware of at that time. (R. 91, at 192.) Thomas added that [w]e didn't talk about future activity because I didn't anticipate anything would be coming up in the future since he was incarcerated. Id. at 192-93. Thomas emphasized that she did not ask Wildman to try to get more information on others. Id. at 193. 14 In late December 1992, Wildman pled guilty to the cocaine conspiracy charges. After the plea hearing, Wildman informed Thomas for the first time about Hamilton's bank robbery and the threats Hamilton had made about Special Agent Schulte and his family. Shortly thereafter, Thomas conveyed Wildman's information to Van Wagner, who, in turn, passed on the information to the prosecutor assigned to the case, Kevin Potter. At Potter's request, Special Agent Schulte obtained permission from Thomas to interview Wildman on January 6, 1993. After Schulte's interview, Hamilton and Wildman were immediately separated. 15 In May 1993, Judge Crabb granted Wildman a four-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and sentenced him to 87 months' imprisonment. Wildman, however, believed that his cooperation warranted more than a four-level departure and thus moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to withdraw his guilty plea. An evidentiary hearing was held on the motion before Judge Crabb. Wildman testified that the government had promised him that he would not have to serve jail time and that he would be placed in the witness protection program. (R. 169, at 27-28.) Judge Crabb, however, denied Wildman's motion. Finding his testimony not to be credible, she rejected Wildman's argument that he had misunderstood his plea agreement at the time he pled guilty. (R. 168, at 84, 86.) 16
17 The parties disagree as to what legal test this court should use to assess Hamilton's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Hamilton refers us to a three-part test this court has employed when the government used perjured testimony. Under that test, a new trial is warranted if the defendant establishes that (1) the government's case included perjured testimony; (2) the government knew or should have known of the perjury; and (3) there is any likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. United States v. Ferguson, 35 F.3d 327, 331-32 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1832 (1995); United States v. Adcox, 19 F.3d 290, 295 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. DePriest, 6 F.3d 1201, 1216 & n. 6 (7th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Guadagno, 970 F.2d 214, 220 (7th Cir.1992)). 18 The government urges us to apply the more stringent test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir.1928). The Larrison test has been applied in cases where the new trial motion is premised on allegedly false testimony: 19 [A] new trial should be granted when, 20 (a) The court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false. 21 (b) That without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion. 22 (c) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial. 23 Id. at 87-88. Accord United States v. Reed, 2 F.3d 1441, 1451 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 898 (1994); Olson v. United States, 989 F.2d 229, 231 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 258 (1993); United States v. Reed, 986 F.2d 191, 192-93 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Mazzanti, 925 F.2d 1026, 1029 & n. 2 (7th Cir.1991). 3 The government contends that the Larrison test is applicable here because Hamilton bases his claim upon inconsistencies in testimony that Wildman presented at Hamilton's February 1993 trial and at a September 1994 evidentiary hearing on Wildman's own § 2255 motion. 24 We need not choose between these slightly different tests because each requires finding that a witness's false testimony affected the jury's verdict. 4 Here, the weight of the evidence of Hamilton's guilt was so overwhelming that the jury would have convicted him with or without Wildman's testimony. Wildman was just one of many witnesses that testified in the government's case. The district court, which heard all the evidence and saw Wildman testify on several occasions, 5 found Wildman's testimony not to be credible unless corroborated by other evidence: 25 The reality is that Wildman is a manipulator who will say anything he thinks will help him. His testimony at Hamilton's hearing and at Hamilton's trial was believable only because it was corroborated in critical respects by other credible evidence. His testimony at his own evidentiary hearing was not credible because it had no similar corroboration and was contradicted by the testimony of the other witnesses. To believe Wildman's testimony that he was a government agent when he talked with Hamilton would require believing a person whose sole motivation at the hearing was to get a better sentencing deal that [sic] he had received two years earlier. Wildman's only interest was to portray himself as someone who had rendered unusual service to the government and had been denied the sentencing concessions he had been promised. To believe Wildman's testimony would require ignoring all of the contradictory evidence of agent Schulte, United States Attorney Potter, Assistant United States Attorney Van Wagner, and his own attorney. 26 (R. 163, at 10-11.) 27 The government presented substantial evidence at trial. William Albee testified that Hamilton confided that he had robbed the Wisconsin bank. Bank teller Debra Jackson identified both Miller and Hamilton as the bank robbers. Special Agent Fram testified that hairs from the inside of the ski hat found along the robbers' escape route matched Robert Miller's hair. A white Mazda resembling that owned by Miller was spotted driving away from the bank after the robbery. The Hamiltons and the Millers fled Burnett County, Wisconsin the day of the robbery, leaving behind brand new furniture and a $300 security deposit. Jennifer Miller testified that Robert Miller confessed that he and Hamilton robbed the bank, and that Hamilton carried a gun during the robbery. Finally, the Hamiltons and Millers spent large amounts of money in Arizona despite having no apparent income source. 28 Because Wildman's testimony did not affect the jury's verdict, Hamilton is not entitled to a new trial on the basis of Gary Kammerud's testimony. 6