Opinion ID: 797256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brady claim raised by Armstead, Wilson, and Thomas

Text: 9 The three defendants who went to trial challenge the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial on the basis of suppressed evidence. During discovery, the government produced hundreds of pages of notes and correspondence from Richard Epps, the former GD leader who cooperated with prosecutors. But two weeks after trial it emerged that the government inadvertently left out two letters that Epps had sent from prison to a fellow prisoner and GD member. 1 The three pages of handwritten materials contain rationalizations for Epps's decision to cooperate, advice to his correspondent, and obscene drawings. One of the letters also states: 10 Now if I see it [illegible] im going to cop out and save myself. But im first going to try and get them on tee [illegible] [illegible] mistake. But if not im going to get Sundown BroLock and Lil-C[.] I don't want to fuck no one I grew up with and that on my Mom, Wife and my Child. . . . I tried to free a lot of guys but they had already made Statement. if they would had remain quiet they would be free. I got Aaron off this case and prove to them we never had on dealing. 11 The defendants argue that in this passage, Epps basically claims that he had been and would continue to shape the prosecution to protect his friends and family and punish his enemies through lying and perjury. They contend that they could have used the letters to impeach Epps by showing that he was willing to use his role as cooperating co-defendant to settle old scores. In this regard they note that Epps had a motive to attack Armstead and Wilson: Armstead demoted Epps from his high-level position, and Wilson's complaint led to the demotion. The government responds that any impeachment value would have been cumulative of other impeachment at trial, where Epps was thoroughly dressed down before the jury as a liar, a braggart, and a thug. But the government concedes that no impeachment at trial tended to show that Epps was biased against some of his co-defendants or that he was willing to lie or provide selective testimony to punish his enemies. 12 If the government deliberately or inadvertently withholds evidence that is material and favorable to the defense, it violates the defendant's right to a fair trial, which is guaranteed by due process. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Boss v. Pierce, 263 F.3d 734, 739-40 (7th Cir. 2001). This rule applies equally to impeachment and exculpatory evidence. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). The government does not dispute that it withheld Epps's letters, and its efforts to show that the letters are not favorable to the defendants are unpersuasive. Epps said he tried to get certain gang members (one of whom, Sundown, was a GD board member who authorized Epps's demotion) and boasted that he got Aaron off. While the evidence would be even more damning if Epps had said that he wanted to get these particular defendants, it is undisputed that he had reason to go after Wilson and Armstead. Evidence that a witness is willing to use his role in a prosecution to target his enemies is certainly favorable to defendants who are his enemies. 13 The claim therefore turns on materiality, which in the Brady context is the same thing as prejudice. Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that its proper disclosure would have led to a different result at trial. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-34, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). In other words, the inquiry is whether, in light of the suppression, the trial produced a verdict worthy of confidence. Id.; United States v. Knight, 342 F.3d 697, 705 (7th Cir.2003). Suppressed evidence that could have been used to impeach a government witness can affect the outcome if it is not cumulative of other impeachment offered at trial. See Simental v. Matrisciano, 363 F.3d 607, 614 (7th Cir.2004); United States v. Fallon, 348 F.3d 248, 252 (7th Cir.2003). Thus, evidence that provides a new basis for impeachment is not cumulative and could well be material. See Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 700-02, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166 (2004); see also Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 270, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). For instance, in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Banks v. Dretke, prosecutors withheld that one of their key witnesses had been paid as a police informant for his participation in the prosecution. The witness was impeached at trial for having been a paid informant in the past, and for having been a drug abuser. The Court held that the suppressed evidence was not cumulative of other impeachment: Neither witness called to impeach Farr gave evidence directly relevant to Farr's part in Banks's trial. 540 U.S. at 702, 124 S.Ct. 1256. Since Farr's testimony was critical to the prosecution, the evidence was material and its suppression deprived the defendant of due process. See also Silva v. Brown, 416 F.3d 980, 988-89 (9th Cir.2005); Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183, 191-92 (1st Cir.2005); Slutzker v. Johnson, 393 F.3d 373, 387 (3d Cir.2004); Crivens v. Roth, 172 F.3d 991, 998-99 (7th Cir.1999). 14 Here, the government argues that any impeachment value from the Epps letters was cumulative of other impeachment at trial. But showing (as the defense did) that Epps had a long criminal record, lied all the time, and was testifying as part of a deal with prosecutors is not the same as showing that he was willing to use his position in the prosecution to get even with gang members who had crossed him. This was a new and potentially powerful line of inquiry that the defense could have used to undermine the value of Epps's testimony. 15 Nevertheless, showing that the Epps letters would afford a unique basis for impeachment does not end the materiality inquiry. The question is whether there was a reasonable probability of a different verdict had the letters been disclosed, Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433, 115 S.Ct. 1555, and here there was not. Undisclosed impeachment evidence would not produce a different result if the testimony of the witness against whom it is offered was strongly corroborated by other evidence. See Conley, 415 F.3d at 190-91 (impeachment evidence material because witness provided the only credible evidence against defendant); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 580 (9th Cir.2005) (same); Slutzker, 393 F.3d at 378 (same); Crivens, 172 F.3d at 998 (same). Here, Epps's testimony was by no means the only — or even the best — evidence that Armstead, Wilson, and Thomas participated in the GD drug conspiracy. That evidence is extensive: Armstead was recorded discussing the drug business and his role in it in a half-dozen meetings and phone calls, 2 and Wilson and Thomas both participated, in concert with other GD members, in numerous drug sales to undercover agents. Moreover, the other cooperating co-defendants also confirmed the appellants' role in the conspiracy. The appellants cling to an instance in which the district court referred to Epps's testimony as the centerpiece of the government's case, but that is not the whole story. A full transcription of the passage in question shows that the district court, in denying the motion for a new trial, felt that other evidence corroborated Epps's testimony: 16 The question I have to consider is whether it's reasonable to believe this could have made a difference. I know one of the arguments the government has made is that there was substantial evidence apart from Epps's testimony that the jury could have relied upon to find a — to find the defendants in this case guilty. Mr. Epps's testimony was lengthy and certainly was a centerpiece or a large section of the government's proof, but it wasn't all that the government had in support of the convictions in this case. 17 In light of the substantial amount of evidence that corroborated Epps's testimony, the government's failure to disclose further impeachment material against Epps does not undermine our confidence in the verdict. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.