Opinion ID: 394080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commonwealth's Agreement with Lincoln.

Text: 65 Zeigler first contends that he was denied due process because the Commonwealth failed to disclose the full scope of its agreement with George Lincoln. He further contends that Lincoln testified falsely concerning the agreement, and the prosecutor's failure to correct his false testimony served to aggravate the due process violation. 66 In accordance with the leading Supreme Court rulings in this area, 1 this Court has established a two-pronged test for determining when the prosecutor's alleged failure to disclose the terms of a plea bargain requires reversal of a conviction: 67 First, the defendant must show that there was a promise of aid made by the Government to a key witness that was not disclosed to the jury. Second, he must demonstrate that, in the language of Giglio and Napue, the false testimony could ... in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury ... 68 United States v. Ramos Algarin, 584 F.2d 562, 564 (1st Cir. 1978) (citing United States v. Bynum, 567 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (1st Cir. 1978)). 69 Lincoln's actual agreement with the Commonwealth was that, in exchange for his truthful testimony about his various criminal activities, the Commonwealth would, among other things, recommend that he not be incarcerated upon the disposition of any indictments returned against him. At trial, however, Lincoln testified that the agreement covered seventeen specific indictments pending against him at that time. In its response to petitioner's motion for any promises, rewards, or inducements, the Commonwealth also indicated that the agreement covered only pending indictments. At oral argument, counsel for the Commonwealth asserted that the discrepancy, if one existed, was made in good faith. 70 In denying Zeigler's motion for a new trial, the motion judge concluded that because Lincoln did not expect any additional charges to be brought against him, his trial testimony constituted a truthful and accurate account of his general agreement with the Commonwealth. Findings and Rulings, at 7. In addition, because the Commonwealth made the agreement with Lincoln before any indictments had been returned against Lincoln and no additional indictments were in fact returned after Zeigler's trial, the court concluded that the Commonwealth's reference to the specific indictments pending at the time of its response to defendant's motion was also truthful and accurate. 71 We agree with the district court that both Lincoln and the Commonwealth adequately disclosed the substance of their agreement. Even if we were to assume, however, that there was an aspect of the agreement which was not fully disclosed, we do not believe there is any reasonable likelihood that the non-disclosure could have affected the judgment of the jury in this case. 72 Petitioner argues that the failure to disclose the full extent of Lincoln's deal left the jury with the false impression that he was exposing himself to numerous additional criminal charges which, according to his testimony, would not have been covered by the deal. This false impression, petitioner contends, might have led the jury to conclude that Lincoln was testifying against his own penal interest rather than pursuant to a promise of leniency, and therefore may have caused it to give Lincoln's testimony unjustified weight. 73 This argument is unsupported by the record. From the outset, Lincoln was portrayed as a contract arsonist. The Commonwealth told the jury that it needed Lincoln's cooperation, and took steps to insure his cooperation, including promises of leniency, placement in protective custody, and assistance in relocating and establishing a new identity. On cross-examination, Lincoln was questioned at length about his extensive involvement in criminal activity and his agreement with the Commonwealth. In closing argument, defense counsel referred several times to Lincoln's deal. At one point, counsel argued that Lincoln would never be prosecuted for his crimes, incorrectly implying that this was part of Lincoln's agreement with the Commonwealth. Finally, defense counsel argued that, because the Commonwealth was not bound by its agreement with Lincoln, he had a continuing motive to lie in order to get the full benefit of his deal. Under these circumstances, we believe the jury was given an adequate opportunity to assess Lincoln's credibility and determine his motivation in testifying. 74 In addition, Lincoln was not the crucial witness in this case. Although his version of the meeting and phone conversations with Zeigler partially contradicted Zeigler's story, far more direct incriminating evidence came from Shaheen and the other witnesses. Thus, this was not a case, like Giglio, in which the government's case depended entirely on a single witness' testimony. Contrast 405 U.S. at 154, 92 S.Ct. at 766. 75