Opinion ID: 674597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Tape of Tinh Ngo's Initial Police Interview

Text: 96 Pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3500 (1988), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the defense requested that the government produce all statements made by confidential informant Tinh Ngo. The government assured the court that all requests for such 3500 material had been complied with. No tape of Tinh Ngo's initial meeting with Detective William Oldham of the New York City Police Department was included. However, during the cross-examination of Tinh Ngo by Thai's attorney, Tinh Ngo stated that during his first interview with Oldham, there had been a tape recorder on the table. Defendants promptly moved for a mistrial. 97 When questioned by the court, AUSA Vinegrad stated that it was his understanding that no tape recording had been made. He said that when Tinh Ngo testified that a tape recorder had been present, Vinegrad checked that with the individual involved. (Tr. 1297.) Oldham, who was present at counsel table, said nothing to contradict or correct Vinegrad's representations. 98 On the following day, however, having investigated the matter further, Vinegrad informed the court that he had been in error, and that, unbeknownst to him, the interview had in fact been recorded. Copies of the tape were then immediately made available to defense counsel. Minh Do renewed the motion for a mistrial on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. 99 The district court, noting that the tape was useful primarily as impeachment material, denied the mistrial motion and declared a one-day recess to allow the defense attorneys to listen to the tape. Addressing Minh Do's counsel in particular, the court pointed out that Minh Do's cross-examination of Tinh Ngo had not yet begun. As it turned out, that cross-examination did not begin until five days after the tape was turned over. 100 In order to gain reversal as a result of a Brady violation, a defendant must show  'a reasonable probability'--one 'sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome'--that the jury would have resolved [the defendant's] case differently had the prosecution disclosed the [evidence] on a timely basis. Payne v. LeFevre, 825 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 988, 108 S.Ct. 508, 98 L.Ed.2d 506 (1987); see also United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383-84, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (opinion of Blackmun, J.); United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.1987). We see no such reasonable probability here. Although the tape indicated that Tinh Ngo had lied to the police in his first interview, the trial court noted that 101 the witness had said during his direct examination and said at least eight times during all the individual cross examinations, [that] he lied. He lied to the agents when he first met them. That was something that was right out before the jury. 102 (Tr. 2810.) 103 Thus, though we do not countenance the government's failure to fulfill its constitutional and statutory obligations to produce exculpatory or impeaching material, we cannot conclude, in light of the recess granted by the court and the redundancy of the belatedly disclosed material, that there was any prejudice. Accordingly, this failure provides no basis for reversal.