Opinion ID: 781934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Angotti Evidence

Text: 22 Mandacina further contends the prosecution failed to timely disclose Angotti's grand jury testimony and immunity deals and, in doing so, deprived Mandacina of his right to formulate a defense and to confront and impeach a key witness. In Mandacina's brief, Mandacina argues the original motion alleged improper conduct in that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence ... which could impeach the witnesses who testified as to Movant's alleged involvement in the crime. Our review of the original habeas motion reveals Mandacina did not raise a Brady claim related to the government's failure to disclose evidence which could impeach Angotti or other key prosecution witnesses. 4 Under the section alleging Brady violations, the original motion references Dodds and Earlywine, but does not allege the government withheld impeachment evidence related to them. We agree with the district court's analysis that each alleged withholding of evidence represents a distinct act, such that the original motion does not provide fair notice of Brady claims not specifically asserted. Because the amended claim does not relate back, it is time barred.
23 Mandacina also claims his trial counsel was ineffective in cross-examining Angotti and Earlywine at trial. In so far as the claim alleges inadequate cross examination of Earlywine, this assertion was not raised in the original motion and is time-barred. In so far as the claim alleges inadequate cross examination of Angotti, the claim was raised in the original motion and carefully reviewed by the district court. Angotti testified only against co-defendant McGuire, and Mandacina's counsel walked out of the courtroom with Mandacina and remained absent during Angotti's testimony. The court referred to an affidavit prepared by trial counsel which explained counsel's decision to leave the courtroom during Mr. Angotti's testimony was based on his desire to underscore in the minds of the jury the importance of the judge's instruction that the testimony not be considered against movant. The district court concluded counsel's decision represented a sound strategy decision. We agree and affirm the dismissal of this claim.