Opinion ID: 2968022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Witness A

Text: The district court did not err in concluding that Witness A could offer material evidence on Moussaoui’s behalf.22 [ ]Several statements by Witness A tend to exculpate Moussaoui.[ ]to undermine the theory (which the Government may or may not intend to advance at trial) that Moussaoui was to pilot a fifth plane into the White House. [ ] This statement is significant in light of other evidence [ tim died as a direct result of the act); Br. for the United States at 89 (asserting that Moussaoui lied in a way that concealed the conspiracy and prevented discovery of the September 11 attacks). A finding by the jury that Moussaoui lacked any knowledge of the planned September 11 attacks would substantially undermine this theory, although the Government might still be able to establish Moussaoui’s eligibility for the death penalty based on his failure to disclose whatever knowledge he did have. 22 The parties dispute whether the materiality determinations by the district court are reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion. We do not decide this question because we would affirm the district court under either standard. 36 UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI ] This is consistent with Moussaoui’s claim that he was to be part of a post-September 11 operation. The Government argues that Witness A’s statements are actually incriminatory of Moussaoui.23 It is true that Witness A has made some statements that arguably implicate Moussaoui in the September 11 attacks. [ ] On balance, however, Moussaoui has made a sufficient showing that evidence from Witness A would be more helpful than hurtful, or at least that we cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial without Witness A’s evidence.