Opinion ID: 6218071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cordova’s First Motion for New Trial

Text: Cordova moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a) on two grounds. First, he challenged the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence connecting him to the SNM enterprise. Second, he contended that the government had twice violated its disclosure obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 16, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972): (1) by its delayed disclosure of Agent Acee’s 302 Report on his unscheduled interview with Cordova, and (2) by its failure to include the agent’s observations during the interview, i.e., Cordova not denying involvement in Dix’s murder and his surprise that Montoya was cooperating in the investigation. 5 The indictment also charged that Cordova had murdered Dix “for the purpose of gaining entrance to and maintaining and increasing position in” SNM. R. vol. 1 at 116; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a). The jury found that the government hadn’t proven this alternative method of satisfying the statute’s purpose requirement. 6 Appellate Case: 20-2007 Document: 010110643560 Date Filed: 02/10/2022 Page: 7 The district court denied the motion. It agreed that the government had violated Rule 16 by not timely disclosing the 302 Report as well as Cordova’s observed reactions during the unscheduled interview.6 The district court explained that disclosure of Cordova’s silence was necessary because the government characterized it as direct, substantive corroboration of his guilt. But the court concluded that, given the weight of the evidence, the violations were harmless because earlier disclosure wouldn’t have changed the verdict. The court also ruled that Cordova had failed to show a Brady/Giglio violation, because the excluded information from the 302 Report was not material.