Opinion ID: 450495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Giglio Issue

Text: 10 Appellant contends that he was denied due process of law because the district court refused to disclose to the jury that the government had reserved the right to make a specific recommendation as to the sentences imposed on co-defendants Caceres and Blas, who testified at trial. Each pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to kidnap prior to trial. Prior to their testimony, counsel for appellant moved for disclosure of any deals made by the government with the co-defendants in exchange for their cooperation. The prosecutor responded: 11 The government has reserved the right to advise the Court of any cooperation of [Blas] and to make a specific recommendation as to the sentence, but there have been no promises to [Blas] or no deals or accommodations other than the exchange of the government's intention to dismiss the other counts in the indictment after [Blas'] change of plea to conspiracy ... I believe I told Mr. Cullen, the defense attorney, that the government would take upon itself to apprise the court of any cooperation from [Blas] now a witness, at the time of his sentencing. That was never a condition to the change of plea. That was simply a representation that the government made. 12 R.Vol. 13 at 1602-03. 13 At oral argument, counsel for the government, who tried the case in the district court, assured us that no deal had been made and that the government uniformly reserves the right to make a recommendation as to sentencing. 14 Appellant's assertion of error rests on Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), in which the Supreme Court held that a convicted defendant is entitled to a new trial if he can establish that the government failed to correct materially false testimony relevant to the testimony of a key prosecution witness, including evidence of a prior deal between that witness and the government. To warrant a new trial, the agreement of leniency must have been reached prior to the witnesses' testimony. United States v. Ramirez, 608 F.2d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.1979). We do not believe that appellant has shown us any direct, or, for that matter, any convincing indirect, evidence of promises of leniency in exchange for testimony. See United States v. Baskes, 649 F.2d 471, 476-77 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1000, 101 S.Ct. 1706, 68 L.Ed.2d 201 (1981). In fact, we note that after the court imposed a sentence of seventeen years imprisonment as to Caceres and three years imprisonment as to Caceres' wife, the government opposed defendants' subsequent motions to reduce those sentences. The government's reservation of the right to make a recommendation at sentencing appears to us to be a fairly standard procedure. At Blas' sentencing hearing, the government recommended that Blas be sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, noting Blas' cooperation, which was motivated [not] simply to better himself, but to make some atonement for what he ... had done. R.Vol. 1 at 10 (2d Supp. Record). The government, however, did not recommend a specific number of years, as the government felt that Blas was slightly more culpable than some of his accomplices. We conclude that appellant has not presented evidence of a promise of leniency as to either of the two co-defendants who testified against appellant: there accordingly has been no denial of due process of law.