Opinion ID: 2962675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: John Jr.

Text: John Jr. has the weakest materiality claim of all the appellants. He was not charged with any offense related to Silva's killing. Instead, he argues that the murder of Silva loomed over the entire trial and was critical to the credibility of the key witnesses against John Jr.: Stephen DiCenso and Tommy Regan. John Jr. Br. at 7. Specifically, he contends that the Noe reports are material for their ability to impeach Regan and DiCenso as to their testimony surrounding the Silva murder [and] would have cast doubt on their testimony as a whole. Id. at 30. Yet, John Jr. never explains how he could have introduced the reports at trial to impeach Regan and DiCenso. The reports do not purport to repeat any statements made by Regan or DiCenso. In fact, neither of them - 23 - is even mentioned in the reports. Therefore, it is doubtful that the reports could have been used at trial to impeach their testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 608, 613. Moreover, as explained above, Regan and DiCenso's testimony regarding the Silva murder was corroborated by physical evidence and testimony of other witnesses. This corroboration significantly lessens any impeachment effect of the Noe reports, especially regarding John Jr.'s convictions, which are unrelated to the Silva killing. As the district court stated, because the Noe reports do not raise a reasonable probability of a different outcome on the counts related to the Silva killing . . . [a] fortiori, they do not raise a reasonable probability of a different outcome on unrelated counts. DeCologero II, 2013 WL 3728409, at .