Opinion ID: 33204
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Timing of the Government's Disclosure

Text: 38 Walters contends that the government's delay in disclosing the identity of Bott, another possible suspect, until approximately one month before trial violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Walters urges reversal on the ground that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Walters a continuance to investigate this evidence. Under Brady v. Maryland, the government must disclose material, exculpatory evidence to a defendant. Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the petitioner; (3) the evidence was material either to guilt or punishment; and (4) nondiscovery of the allegedly favorable evidence was not the result of a lack of due diligence. Graves v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 465, 475 (5th Cir.2003). 39 The record does not support Walters's contention of a Brady violation. The government disclosed the evidence nearly four weeks before trial. See Lawrence v. Lensing, 42 F.3d 255, 257 (5th Cir.1994) (Because we find that the existence and contents of the [evidence] were disclosed at trial, we hold that the prosecution did not suppress any evidence.); United States v. McKinney, 758 F.2d 1036, 1049-50 (5th Cir.1985) (holding same). The complaint that the government had the information for some time before disclosing it to Walters does not, in itself, show a Brady violation. If the defendant received the material in time to put it to effective use at trial, his conviction should not be reversed simply because it was not disclosed as early as it might have and, indeed, should have been. McKinney, 758 F.2d at 1050. Walters had almost a month after the government disclosed the information about Bott to investigate and put it to effective use at trial. At trial, defense counsel was able to put evidence before the jury that other students had made threats about bombs or violence at the Lackland base. See United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885, 898-99 (5th Cir.1997) (holding that the disclosure of reports after cross-examination had begun did not violate Brady where the defense was able to review the reports for a few days and use them to conduct an effective cross-examination); United States v. Randall, 887 F.2d 1262, 1269 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that the government's disclosure of a witness's drug addiction during trial did not violate Brady due process where the defendant had ample time to cross-examine the witness on the issue); McKinney, 758 F.2d at 1050 (finding no Brady violation where the defendant was able to use documents disclosed during trial in an effective cross-examination); United States v. Anderson, 574 F.2d 1347, 1352 (5th Cir.1978) (finding the disclosure of exculpatory grand jury testimony during trial was timely provided under Brady ). 40 The record also fails to demonstrate that the information the government allegedly delayed in disclosing was material, as Brady requires. [E]vidence is material `if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-34, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). In light of the fact that Bott denied making the statement attributed to him and left the state before the bombing occurred, the record does not support Walters's argument that the information the government disclosed about Bott was material. See Graves, 343 F.3d at 476 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-110, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)) (The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish `materiality' in the constitutional sense.). 41 Walters also argues that the district court erred by refusing to grant a continuance to enable him further to investigate Bott as a viable suspect. A trial court's decision to grant or deny a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 217 (5th Cir.1990). In reviewing the denial of a continuance, this court looks to the totality of the circumstances, including (a) the amount of time available; (b) the defendant's role in shortening the time needed; (c) the likelihood of prejudice from denial; (d) the availability of discovery from the prosecution; (e) the complexity of the case; (f) the adequacy of the defense actually provided at trial; and (g) the experience of the attorney with the accused. Id. ; United States v. McDonald, 837 F.2d 1287, 1289 (5th Cir.1988). Walters had previously requested, and been granted, two continuances. Walters's defense team, which included the resources of three attorneys and a hired investigator, had nearly four weeks after the government disclosed the information at issue to contact, interview, or subpoena Bott at the address and telephone number the government provided. Walters has not shown why he was unable to do so, nor argued that Bott was unavailable. See United States v. Olaniyi-Oke, 199 F.3d 767, 771 (5th Cir.1999) (requiring a party requesting a continuance based on the unavailability of a witness to demonstrate (1) the exercise of due diligence to obtain the witness's attendance; (2) that the witness would tender substantial favorable evidence; (3) that the witness will be available and willing to testify; and (4) that denial would materially prejudice the movant). The prosecution provided Walters with Bott's identity, contact information, travel movements, and statements about his presence at Lackland. Walters's counsel presented an effective defense, eliciting admissions from government witnesses that other students had threatened violent acts at the Air Force base. With a cushion of nearly four weeks and little new information available, Walters has not demonstrated a likelihood of prejudice from the denial of the continuance. See Hopkins, 916 F.2d at 218 (finding no prejudice from the denial of continuance to obtain documents where the document's contents were either previously known, available from other sources, or cumulative). No abuse of discretion is shown on this record. See United States v. Kelly, 973 F.2d 1145, 1148-49 (5th Cir.1992) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of continuance under similar circumstances). Neither the timing of the government's disclosure of the information about Bott, nor the trial court's denial of a continuance after the disclosure, supports reversal. 42