Opinion ID: 775511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government's Alleged Failure to Disclose Information

Text: 19 Reyes contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the prosecution was obligated to disclose that: (1) Debra Martell had informed prosecutors of her suspicions of financial improprieties on the part of Choudhury and Chiapetta related to the sale of Siraj; and (2) Debra Martell had been discharged from Avitek. Reyes argues that the government was required to disclose this information to the defense pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); see also United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). 20 In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith of the prosecution. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. The prosecution's obligation to disclose information extends to both exculpatory evidence and facts material to the impeachment of prosecution witnesses, and attaches even in the absence of a specific request by the defendant. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110-11 (1976); United States v. Allain, 671 F.2d 248, 255 (7th Cir. 1982). Before the court can grant a motion for a new trial as a result of an alleged Brady violation, the moving party must establish that: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence allegedly suppressed was favorable to the defense; and (3) the evidence was material to an issue at trial. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; United States v. Walton, 217 F.3d 443, 450 (7th Cir. 2000). 21 Evidence is material to the defense if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is that sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. The materiality standard is not met by the mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial . . . . Thus, Brady does not require a prosecutor to divulge every scintilla of evidence that might conceivably inure to a defendant's benefit. 22 Lieberman v. Washington, 128 F.3d 1085, 1092 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted, emphasis added), quoting United States v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499, 509 (7th Cir. 1997). 23 Reyes, in a buckshot approach, attempts to gain a new trial by trying to link the two instances of alleged non-disclosure to the elements of Brady by speculating that had he known these facts prior to trial, he would have been able to cross- examine Martell more effectively and impeach her credibility as a witness by (1) supposedly being able to demonstrate that Martell's termination provided her with some type of motivation to retaliate against Reyes (despite the fact that Reyes had left the company approximately fifteen months before Martell's discharge); (2) establishing that Martell's accusations against Choudhury were made in retaliation for her discharge by Chiapetta; and (3) using Martell's accusations against Choudhury to, in Reyes' words, further explore the relationship between Choudhury and his employees. 24 Reyes' Brady claim concerning Martell's discharge fails because the information was not suppressed by the government, and in fact Martell specifically testified during trial about her termination. Throughout his appellate brief, Reyes insists that he had no way of knowing that Martell's employment had been terminated, but it is evident from a reading of the record that had Reyes paid closer attention during the trial (or scrutinized the transcript more closely prior to filing his appeal), he would have been aware of the following questions asked by the prosecution at trial and Martell's answers: 25 Q: When was the last day that you worked for Avetech [sic]? 26 A: The 27th of September. 27 Q: And why is it that you no longer work for Avitech [sic]? 28 A: I didn't get along with the new owner. She fired me. We didn't see eye to eye. I asked too many questions. (emphasis added) 29 Transcript p. 606. 30 Brady does not require a prosecutor to divulge every scintilla of evidence that might conceivably inure to a defendant's benefit. Lieberman, 128 F.3d at 1092. Furthermore, this court has made clear that 'there is nothing in Brady or Agurs to require that such disclosures be made before trial.' Allain, 671 F.2d at 255 (emphasis added). Due process is satisfied as long as the ultimate (albeit delayed) disclosure of Martell's termination was made before it is too late for the defendant to make use of any benefits of the evidence. Id., quoting United States v. Ziperstein, 601 F.2d 281, 291 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1031 (1980). We are convinced that Reyes' Brady claim is without merit in as much as the very information he claims was suppressed (Martell's termination), is reflected in the record at trial. As a result, Reyes had ample opportunity to cross-examine Martell about any information regarding her termination from Avitek, but he failed to do so. 31 We turn now to Reyes' allegation that he was deprived of favorable information by the government's failure to disclose Martell's suspicions of vague financial misdealings between Chiapetta and Choudhury at the time of the Siraj-Avitek sale. In order for non-disclosed information to be considered favorable to the defense (the second element of the Brady test), the defendant must establish that the evidence is either exculpatory in nature or tends to impeach a prosecution witness. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433; Agurs, 427 U.S. at 110. With regard to Reyes' argument as to the impeachment value of the alleged suppressed information, we note that Reyes had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to discharge Martell, much less anything to do with the sale of Siraj's assets to Chiapetta, because he left his employment with Siraj some nine months prior to the sale in March, 1999, and 15 months prior to Martell's discharge in September, 1999. Furthermore, Martell never alleged any misconduct on the part of Reyes and she testified that she harbored no hard feelings toward him. There is no link between Reyes and Martell's termination from Avitek, and we are of the opinion that there is no basis in this record to conclude that Martell's testimony was motivated by even a scintilla of ill will toward Reyes. The impeachment value of the alleged suppressed information is not supported by the record and Reyes' claim is without merit. 32 Turning to the supposed exculpatory value of Martell's suspicions, Reyes speculates that had he been aware of her accusations, his cross-examination of Martell would have revealed significantly more about the manner in which Choudhury ran Siraj (including his supposed dealings with Texam) and the relationship between Choudhury and his employees. Reyes' argument is unconvincing because he worked with both Choudhury and Martell at Siraj for approximately 15 months, and he played an integral role at Siraj and was well aware of the business operations and business climate at the company. We thus fail to understand how Martell's vague allegations and suspicions could have provided Reyes with any knowledge he did not already possess concerning Choudhury's relationship with his employees, the manner in which Choudhury ran Siraj or his dealings with Texam, and other material aspects of the business climate at Siraj during all relevant times. If Choudhury or Martell had knowledge of facts potentially helpful to Reyes, Reyes was free to subpoena either or both of them before or during trial and call them as hostile witnesses and he failed to do so. Furthermore, exculpatory information is that which is supportive of a claim of innocence to the crimes charged. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 107. Martell's suspicions and allegations had nothing to do with proof of Reyes' criminal conduct as charged in the indictment, and thus we are convinced that the alleged suppressed information had no exculpatory value. 33 Our conclusion that the alleged suppressed information was not favorable to the defense (i.e., had no impeachment or exculpatory value) precludes any claim that disclosure (or earlier disclosure) of the information would have impacted the result of the trial. See Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682; Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433-34. Reyes' broad challenge to his conviction on the basis of the prosecution's alleged failure to comply with Brady is frivolous.