Opinion ID: 223162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Cumulative Witness Testimony

Text: Mr. Cooper also contends that the district court erred when it concluded that Mr. Gleason's testimony was itself cumulative. Mr. Cooper argues that Mr. Gleason was a unique witness due to his position with Renaissance and the scope of services that he provided. Aplt. Opening Br. at 42. Mr. Cooper further argues that in contrast to his other co-defendants, whose testimony as a whole was favorable to him and to the company, its objectives, and its product, Mr. Gleason provided testimony that was generally and pervasively hostile. Id. at 43. The government responds that Mr. Gleason's testimony was not essential to Mr. Cooper's convictions because Mr. Gleason was one of several tax return preparers who acknowledged preparing false or fraudulent tax returns in furtherance of the Renaissance scheme and was only one of several coconspirators who had specifically drawn the defendant's attention to faults with the Renaissance scheme, and the defendant chose to ignore the advice and information from each. Aplee. Br. at 27-28. In instances where we have concluded that the allegedly suppressed impeachment evidence was material, we have stressed that the witness being impeached was absolutely critical to the government's case. See Robinson, 583 F.3d at 1271 ([H]is testimony was central  indeed essential  to the government's case.... It is not a stretch to say that the guilty verdict in this case depended upon the [confidential informant's] testimony.); Douglas, 560 F.3d at 1175 ([The witness] was an indispensable witness for the State's case against [the defendant].... Because impeachment of the witness who held the key to the successful prosecution of [the defendant] was denied to the defense, the district court correctly concluded that the State's Brady violations were material.); Nuckols, 233 F.3d at 1266 ([The witness's] trial testimony was key to a successful prosecution.... If [the witness's] testimony that Mr. Nuckols initiated the interrogation were impeached, the entire support for the State's case would have been significantly undermined, if not destroyed altogether.). A review of the evidence here demonstrates that Mr. Gleason  although an important witness  was not a crucial or critical witness to the government's case because several other co-conspirators provided commensurate testimony. As the district court stated: [Mr.] Gleason was not the sole tax return preparer to testify that false or fraudulent tax returns were filed with the IRS as a result of Renaissance's activities. R., Vol. 4, at 781. For example, [Mr.] Steelman ..., [Ms.] Ruth[,] and [Ms.] Crotts testified that the fraudulent tax returns they prepared for Renaissance [IMAs] ... were consistent with the false tax advice provided by [Mr. Cooper] and Renaissance, id., and multiple co-conspirators testified at trial that they raised concerns about the false tax advice to [Mr. Cooper], id. at 782. This point is underscored by our precedent; as a witness, Mr. Gleason was not as unique and critical as the government's witnesses in Robinson, Douglas, Nuckols, and Torres. In light of the foregoing, we conclude the district court was correct in concluding that [Mr.] Gleason's testimony was merely cumulative evidence of [Mr. Cooper's] illegal activities. Id. at 783. Consequently, the suppressed impeachment evidence regarding Mr. Gleason was not material.