Opinion ID: 489406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Government's Alleged Brady Violations

Text: 19 Stewart argues that the government repeatedly failed to disclose evidence favorable to her defense, thereby violating her due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 4 To establish a Brady violation, appellant must show: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) such evidence was favorable to the appellant or exculpatory; and (3) the evidence was material. United States v. Bent-Santana, 774 F.2d 1545, 1551 (11th Cir.1985). Evidence is material for Brady purposes only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3384, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (plurality); see also id. at 3385 (White, J., concurring). 20 Stewart alleges that the government failed fully to disclose the covert activities of her father. We assume, arguendo, that Stewart's allegations are true--i.e., that Stewart's father worked for years as a secret agent for various United States government agencies, that in the course of his covert activities Stewart's father regularly possessed, interdicted and sold firearms and other munitions of war, 5 that Stewart's father in fact procured the weapons involved in this case, and that the government failed to fully disclose such evidence to Stewart. Even assuming that Stewart's allegations are true, however, Stewart fails to establish a Brady violation. Evidence regarding her father's covert activities is, as discussed earlier, totally irrelevant to the issue of whether eighteen months after her father's death Stewart illegally possessed and transferred firearms. Such evidence was thus neither favorable nor exculpatory to Stewart, and was certainly not material for Brady purposes. 21 Stewart relies heavily on United States v. Diaz-Munoz, 632 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. Unit B 1980). In Diaz-Munoz, the government contended that criminal defendants laundered illegally obtained money through a particular bank account; but defendants contended that the CIA created the bank account and funnelled money through it for anti-Castro activities. The former Fifth Circuit held that, unless the CIA produced its file concerning the bank account for in camera inspection, all charges relating to this bank account must be dismissed. Id., 632 F.2d at 1334. 22 Dismissal of charges is a strong measure, never to be taken lightly. Moreover, the Diaz-Munoz decision is distinguishable because the CIA file in that case was allegedly directly relevant to defendant's guilt or innocence. In contrast, the alleged government files not produced for in camera inspection in the present case are irrelevant to Stewart's guilt or innocence--even assuming that Stewart's allegations regarding the existence and contents of the file are true. Thus, dismissal is unwarranted. 23 Stewart also asserts that the government failed to disclose that it promised Zepatis, the key government witness, a lenient sentence in return for his cooperation in the present case. According to Stewart, she learned of this agreement between Zepatis and the government only when, late in the trial, she called Zepatis as a defense witness and Zepatis testified regarding the deal. 24 Zepatis's testimony indicates that pursuant to an agreement, Zepatis pled guilty to a drug charge in return for the government recommending probation on that charge and dropping four other drug charges. His testimony indicates that on April 26, 1985, a judge disregarded the government's recommendation of probation and sentenced Zepatis to three years incarceration. 25 Nothing in the record suggests, however, that the government promised to seek a lenient sentence in return for Zepatis's cooperation in Stewart's case. Indeed, Zepatis did not contact a government agent regarding Stewart's firearms until May 9, 1985--two weeks after his own sentencing. Thus, the plea agreement between Zepatis and the government was irrelevant to Stewart's case, and the government had no obligation to disclose it to Stewart. 6