Opinion ID: 598598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unrevealed Information

Text: 5
6 Smentek alleges, but never adequately establishes, that the government made unrevealed promises to two witnesses. Instead of offering any direct evidence of these promises, Smentek asks us to draw inferences from two newspaper articles. 7 One of these articles claims that the government arrested witness Green Smith for four drug offenses, but never revoked his parole. Although this article certainly illustrates neglect by federal officials, it never links the government's conduct to Smentek's case. If Smentek intends to show that, in return for testimony, the government allowed Smith to sell drugs, he must provide more proof of this unlikely premise. 8 Another of Smentek's articles shows that the United States Attorney, Dan Webb, appeared at C.J. Wilson's resentencing hearing and informed the judge about Wilson's cooperation. This article, however, proves only that Webb fulfilled his revealed promises to Smith, not that he made secret promises to him. As Webb stated at trial: 9 [T]he deal, the government arrangement, whatever you want to call it, that Wilson had with the United States Government and still has, the United States Government will make known his cooperation, just like Smith's cooperation and Kelly's cooperation, to the Judge who sentenced them. That's what's going to happen, not, The government, your Honer, wants their sentences reduced to ten years, or 15 years. No, that's not the deal. 10 The deal, the arrangement, Judge, he cooperated in this case. This is what the government promised, and in fact, part of that arrangement was that the government would only relate that cooperation to the Judge as long as they told the truth. 11 No evidence presented in the district court or recounted here shows that the government exceeded these revealed promises.
12 Smentek also argues that the government violated the principles of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), when it concealed the fruits of a financial investigation. Brady requires prosecutors to provide information to the defense only if the information is both favorable to the accused and material to either guilt or punishment. Id. Evidence is material 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, 674-75, 682 (1985). 13 Smentek has never established that the alleged undisclosed evidence was either favorable or material. As the district court pointed out, the record does not show what information, if any, the investigation yielded. Even if the evidence was exculpatory, it would have provided little help to Smentek, because the government acknowledged at trial that it had subpoenaed bank accounts and other miscellaneous records, and that it could not trace most of the bribe money. Given this admission and the overwhelming evidence against the defendants, it is implausible that additional financial information would have affected Smentek's trial. 14