Opinion ID: 198068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merit Awards to FBI Agents

Text: 20 Shea asserts that the district court erroneously denied his motion for the discovery of money or rewards provided to certain FBI agents, who were assigned to investigate the defendant. Relying on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), Shea contends that since the requested information was materially exculpatory, the government violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to disclose such information. We review a district court's denial of a discovery motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Phaneuf, 91 F.3d 255, 260 (1st Cir.1996). 21 In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.... 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Exculpatory evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). In turn, a reasonable probability is one that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. Shea argues that the requested information would have been relevant to show bias on the part of the government's FBI witnesses. Since the government's case depended almost completely on the testimony of these witnesses, he asserts that, if this information had been disclosed, it would have altered the jury's conviction. 22 The defendant has failed to articulate a theory as to how the requested information would exculpate him. The pretrial discovery motion requests that the district court order the government to make available the amounts of money or other rewards, e.g., promotion, step raises, transfers to office of choice, provided to the special agents assigned to the matters pertaining to [him] (emphasis added). It is important to note that Shea's motion does not seek information regarding awards that were contingent on any agent's testimony. In our view, the fact that FBI agents may have received merit awards for the arrest of Shea would not have changed the outcome of the trial. The jury was well aware that law enforcement officers are paid to investigate crimes and make arrests. Absent particularized allegations of agent misconduct, the most reasonable inference a jury might make from the existence of a merit award program is that Shea was a particularly dangerous suspect worthy of special attention. 23 Shea also argues that the district court's denial of his discovery motion violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by limiting his ability to uncover witness bias. We reject this argument outright. Even without the sought-after information, defense counsel could have questioned testifying agents about this issue. Moreover, we find no evidence in the record that the district court foreclosed cross-examination by the defense on FBI merit awards. At trial, Shea's counsel asked one agent, Agent Little, whether the FBI had a program whereby agents who make good [surveillance] pictures or get convictions, get rewarded by transfers, promotions or cash awards. The government did not object to this question. When the agent testified that he did not know because he had never gotten one, defense counsel responded, I can see why. The record reflects that the government objected to this last retort, and the judge properly sustained the objection. We do not adopt Shea's reading of the trial transcript that the district court, in effect, foreclosed an inquiry into FBI merit awards by sustaining this objection. Therefore, we rule that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shea' discovery motion.