Opinion ID: 2962675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Paul J.

Text: Paul J.'s materiality claim is weaker than Paul A.'s. Unlike Paul A., Paul J. was not convicted of playing a role in Silva's murder itself. Instead, his witness tampering convictions stem from his role in the failed attempt to kill Silva by overdosing her with heroin. While the Noe reports provide an alternative explanation for how Silva was actually killed, the reports do not directly contradict the evidence that Paul J. was ordered by Paul A. to buy the heroin needed to kill Silva, that 3Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b) permits [e]xtrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement . . . if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. - 21 - Paul J. bought the heroin, and that Meuse and DiCenso gave Silva the heroin but she did not die. As with the evidence incriminating Paul A. in Silva's murder, DiCenso's testimony implicating Paul J. in the attempted overdose was also supported by other testimony. For example, Antonio Centeno, a heroin dealer, testified that Paul J. had requested heroin from him strong enough for an overdose, and Centeno sold him 30 bags. A few days after the purchase, Paul J. returned and told Centeno that the heroin wasn't strong enough to take care of someone out of the way. Additionally, John P. testified that he had heard Paul A. tell his son that the heroin intended to kill Silva didn't work. In another conversation, John Jr. told John P. that Meuse had given Silva the heroin and that it had failed to kill her. Paul J. contends that, despite this evidence, the Noe reports are core exculpatory evidence sufficient in weight to alter the entire balance of the case against [him]. Paul J. Br. at 39. He argues that, if the jury had heard testimony indicating that McConnell was involved in Silva's murder, it could have concluded that Portalla's crew was behind the entire conspiracy to kill Silva and would have discounted any testimony implicating Paul J. in the attempted heroin overdose. However, like Paul A., Paul J. fails to recognize that the reports themselves are inadmissible hearsay. Furthermore, he fails to demonstrate how - 22 - the reports would have led to admissible evidence. He has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the jury would have heard any testimony implicating McConnell in Silva's death. He simply assumes that Noe (or someone else) would have testified in accordance with the allegations made in the Noe reports. Considering that the Noe reports have less relevance to Paul J.'s conduct than to Paul A.'s, and we have already found that the reports do not undermine confidence in [Paul A.'s] verdict, Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435, we also find that, providing some deference to the district court, Paul J. has failed to establish a reasonable probability of a different result at trial.