Opinion ID: 585758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Walgren's Request for an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: 22 Walgren claims that [a]lthough much of the information which the Government produced to Walgren was exculpatory on its face, some of the information was ambiguous and further discovery could have settled the District Court's doubts concerning its exculpatory nature and its effect at trial. It is clear from the record that the district court had no such doubts. If anything, the undisclosed evidence was consistent with the government's case as presented at trial and thus corroborated the government agents' testimony. The district court concluded that the material was exculpatory only if portions of it were considered out of context. After reviewing the record, we agree with this assessment. The district court determined that further discovery and hearings would just prolong the inevitable and proper result, wasting money and resources in the meantime. We find that the district court acted properly in refusing further discovery or hearings. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.