Opinion ID: 584322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Failure to Disclose Loiselle's Entire Statement

Text: 20 After Loiselle's statement was read into evidence, appellants realized that their copies did not contain the last two lines: If I am found missing again, this should explain where or what has happened to me. Appellants objected and moved for a mistrial or other corrective measures. 10 The district court instructed the jury that the last two lines were to be considered only as they related to Loiselle's state of mind--his belief that failure to repay the loan would result in violence or danger to him. Also, the prosecutor was not allowed to argue about Loiselle's death in summation. 21 Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 provides in pertinent part: 22 (a)(1)(C) Documents and Tangible Objects. 23 Upon request of the defendant the government shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, ... which are within the possession, custody, or control of the government, and which are material to the preparation of the defendant's defense or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial.... 24 Even if inadvertent, 11 the government's failure to provide appellants with Loiselle's entire written statement violated Rule 16. However, a discovery violation does not automatically preclude the government's use of the evidence at trial. United States v. Rodriguez, 799 F.2d 649, 652 (11th Cir.1986). Relief for violations of discovery rules lies within the discretion of the trial court; a defendant must show prejudice to substantial rights to warrant reversal of that discretion. Id. In this case, the appellants have made no showing of prejudice; they have not suggested how they could have rebutted the evidence more effectively had they known about it sooner. 25 We conclude that the measures taken by the district court were adequate to protect the appellants' rights. The court limited the jury's consideration of the omitted lines to proof of Loiselle's state of mind; the prosecution was not allowed to argue that Loiselle was dead in closing argument, or to suggest any inferences to be drawn from his death. These safeguards were sufficient. 12 26