Opinion ID: 3000832
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brady Allegations

Text: Dabney maintains that his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 73 U.S. 83 (1963), were violated by the district court’s failure either to further investigate the complaints pending against the testifying officers or to require the government to turn over all of the unsubstantiated complaint registers in its possession. We review a district court’s determination that disputed evidence need not be produced under Brady for abuse of discretion. United States v. O’Hara, 301 F.3d 563, 569 (7th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court held in Brady that “the suppres- sion 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.” 73 U.S. at 87. This holding places no investigative obligation on courts, but rather only mandates that the prosecution must turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence in its possession. Id. As such, Dabney’s first argument fails because the district court was under no independent duty to further probe or investigate the pending com- 6 No. 06-2192 plaints against the officers that were identified by the government. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 178 F.3d 904, 908 (7th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases rejecting the notion that Brady places discovery obligations upon courts). We turn, then, to Dabney’s claim that the district court should have ordered the disclosure of the remaining complaint registers, either to Dabney directly or to the court for in camera review. Dabney can only demonstrate a Brady violation if the evidence the government allegedly suppressed “is both favorable to the accused and material to the issue of guilt or punishment.” United States v. Bastanipour, 41 F.3d 1178, 1181 (7th Cir. 1994). “There is never a real ‘Brady violation’ unless the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999). Although the prosecution’s Brady obligation extends to impeachment evidence, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Dabney provides no support for his assertion that the remaining, unsubstantiated complaint registers contained admissible impeachment evidence. Because extrinsic evidence cannot be introduced to prove specific conduct attacking a witness’s credibility, FED. R. EVID. 608(b), the complaint registers would have been inadmissible to rebut the officers’ denials of the allegations. See United States v. Veras, 51 F.3d 1365, 1375 (7th Cir. 1995) (suppressed misconduct allegation against police officer witness was not material because inadmissible under Rule 608(b)). Moreover, although the district court decided in camera review was unnecessary, the government’s offer to turn the documents over for such review “negates any argument that the government suppressed favorable or material No. 06-2192 7 information.” Bastanipour, 41 F.3d at 1182. Finally, given Dabney’s own admission to possessing the firearm, there is no serious possibility that disclosure of the complaints—whatever their content—would have led to a different verdict. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dabney’s Brady requests.