Opinion ID: 173187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Posttrial Judicial Proceedings

Text: After both Williams and Watts had testified, a member of the courtroom audience alerted defense counsel that the two had been sharing a cell; the government confirmed this two days after the verdict. On September 29 Defendant moved under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 for an evidentiary hearing and new trial. His motion alleged that Fed.R.Evid. 615 and the district court's sequestration order had been violated because the witnesses had conferred over their respective testimony both before and, more importantly, after Ms. Williams testified and before Ms. Watts testified at Defendant's jury trial. Id. Vol. 1, Part 3 at 737. [1] Although acknowledging that each witness had been cross-examined as to what they did to prepare for their testimony and who they spoke with and that [n]either mentioned having spoken with each other, Defendant contended that [i]t defies belief that neither [witness] would have spoken of the case at hand here or the questions posed by counsel at trial. Id. at 738. The government denied that the witnesses had impermissibly conferred, and it submitted affidavits executed by Williams and Watts after trial. Williams's affidavit states: Prior to my testimony, I was instructed by both my attorney ... and by [the prosecutor] not to discuss my testimony with anyone, and in particular, not to discuss the facts of the case or my preparations with April Watts.... After my trial testimony, I did not discuss my testimony or the questions asked with April Watts. Id. at 752-53. Similarly, Watts's affidavit states: Prior to my testimony, I was instructed by [the prosecutor] not to discuss my testimony with anyone, and in particular, not to discuss the facts of the case or my preparations with Monica Williams.... After Monica Williams testified and before I testified in the trial, I did not learn of the questions asked of Monica Williams or what she said in court, and I did not discuss my future testimony with her. Id. at 754-55. The district court reviewed the witnesses' affidavits and their testimony on cross-examination. Noting that defense counsel had examined each witness about her pretrial statements to law-enforcement agents, the court compared those statements with the witnesses' trial testimony and found no indication that their testimony at trial appeared to be the result of jailhouse discussions between them that caused them to conform their testimony perjuriously to that of each other. Id. Vol. 3, Part 3 at 712-13. The court continued: [T]he defendant does not point to specific facts in his motion, one, that codefendants Watts and Williams violated my sequestration order, and two, that if they did confer, that they dishonestly conformed their testimony at trial to coincide with those impermissible discussions. Id. at 713. Therefore it denied Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. We now turn to the two contested issues on appeal: (1) whether the government's failure to disclose its witnesses' cell-sharing arrangement was a Brady violation, and (2) whether the district court committed plain error in instructing the jury on the intoxication defense.