Opinion ID: 2709086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Helton’s Brady claim

Text: Next, defendant Helton argues that the government sup‐ pressed exculpatory evidence contained in documents from Nos. 11‐3240, 12‐1207, 12‐1295 19 the bankruptcy case files that agents seized from his law of‐ fice during the fraud’s investigation. Helton says that this was a Brady violation. He acknowledges that he never raised this issue below, and as such, we can review only for plain error. Regardless, the claim is plainly without merit. To es‐ tablish a Brady violation, Helton must show that the gov‐ ernment suppressed material exculpatory evidence. The problem is that the government did not “suppress” the evi‐ dence Helton describes. The information he claims to have sought was in his own case files, which the government says were returned or otherwise made available to him well in advance of trial. Despite Helton’s bare assertions to the con‐ trary, we have no reason to doubt the government’s credibil‐ ity on this point.6 And even if the files were not returned promptly, Helton himself knew of the bankruptcy case files’ existence and whatever exculpatory potential they pos‐ sessed. This is not a situation where the government knew something that he did not. See United States v. Lee, 399 F.3d 864, 865 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Brady v. Maryland deals with the concealment of exculpatory evidence unknown to the de‐ fendant.” (internal citation omitted)). This claim also fails.