Opinion ID: 214490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Credibility of Sergeant Snyder

Text: Finally, Jeanpierre asserts that the government violated Brady by advising him, long after trial, that a magistrate judge, in a probable cause hearing in an unrelated case with a different defendant, determined that Sergeant Snyder was not credible. According to Jeanpierre, not being aware of this prior finding prevented his counsel from effectively cross-examining Sergeant Snyder to impeach his testimony. Under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the government must disclose matters that affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses. United States v. Morton, 412 F.3d 901, 906 (8th Cir. 2005). [F]or example, a defendant is entitled to know of a promise to drop charges against a key witness if that witness testifies for the government. Id. However, the nondisclosure of Giglio evidence only justifies a retrial if the withheld information is deemed material. United States v. Spinelli, 551 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir.2008). United States v. Garcia, 562 F.3d 947, 952 n. 7 (8th Cir.2009). Undisclosed Brady/Giglio information is deemed material so as to justify a retrial only if there is a reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability of a different result is shown when the government's failure to disclose undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. Id. at 953 (internal quotations, alterations, and citations omitted). Here, the district court found that the magistrate judge's credibility determination was inadmissible because it was hearsay. A majority of our sister circuits to consider the issue have held that judicial findings of facts are hearsay, inadmissible to prove the truth of the findings unless a specific hearsay exception exists. United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184, 1191-92 (10th Cir.2002); United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1554 (11th Cir.1994); Nipper v. Snipes, 7 F.3d 415, 417 (4th Cir.1993)). But see United States v. Dawson, 434 F.3d 956, 959 (7th Cir. 2006) (finding that the decision whether to allow witness to be cross-examined about prior judicial determination finding him not credible is confided to discretion of trial judge and that such questioning is not barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), which proscribes the use of extrinsic evidence to undermine witness's character for truthfulness). Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, two hearsay exceptions permit the admission of judgments. Neither of these exceptions are applicable in the present case because they are limited to (1) prior judgments involving criminal convictions subject to more than one year of imprisonment, Fed. R.Evid. 803(22), and (2) judgments used to provide proof of matters of personal, family or general history, or boundaries, id. 803(23). Sine, 493 F.3d at 1036-37. In any event, we need not decide whether judicial credibility determinations are inadmissible hearsay because, even assuming that they are admissible, Jeanpierre has failed to show under Giglio how the adverse credibility finding was material. Jeanpierre simply cannot show a reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Garcia, 562 F.3d at 953 (internal quotations, alteration, and citations omitted). The government produced overwhelming evidence of Jeanpierre's guilt at trial. As the government notes, seven codefendants testified that they spoke to Jeanpierre and later met with him to purchase crack cocaine on numerous occasions between October 2007 and December 2007. Additionally, officers conducting surveillance observed Jeanpierre at these meetings, and numerous intercepted wiretap calls established that Jeanpierre agreed to meet and sell crack cocaine to his codefendants through these calls. Finally, a videotape showed Jeanpierre engaging in drug trafficking activity. Therefore, we hold that the government did not violate Brady or Giglio in belatedly disclosing the adverse credibility finding made against Sergeant Snyder in an unrelated case.