Opinion ID: 177322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jencks Act and Brady Violations

Text: Johnson’s second contention is that we should conduct an in camera review of FBI agent Marie Kondzielski’s redacted grand jury testimony for potential impeachment evidence that was withheld in violation of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). After we remanded this case with directions for the district court to review the withheld material, the district court concluded that “Special Agent Marie Konzielski’s redacted testimony was immaterial and non-exculpatory and does not in any way contradict her testimony -4- at trial” and accordingly held that “Defendant is . . . not entitled to a new trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3500.” Having reviewed the government’s full in camera submission, we agree with the district court’s conclusion. The redacted testimony is consistent with the evidence produced at trial, and therefore would have been irrelevant for impeachment purposes. The district court correctly concluded that the government’s Jencks Act violation was harmless error. See United States v. Ogbuehi, 18 F.3d 807, 811 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Deciding whether any [Jencks Act] error was harmless necessarily requires determining whether the statement could have been used for impeachment purposes.”). For the same reason, we also conclude that the government did not violate Brady v. Maryland, as the withheld testimony was not “material either to guilt or to punishment.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.