Opinion ID: 1650436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reduction of charges in exchange for testimony.

Text: Following the defendant's trial the pending charges against Bridges were reduced. Defendant vigorously asserts that this reduction demonstrates that Bridges' testimony was the result of an undisclosed deal between the district attorney and Bridges. Reliance is again placed on Napue. In Napue the state court found that the prosecutor had made a deal with the witness; that finding was not challenged in the federal court. [5] The present record contains no evidence at all to support such an assertion. At the hearing on the motion for a new trial counsel for defendant introduced affidavits from two inmates of the Milwaukee county jail who alleged that Bridges had told them that he had lied about defendant's guilt in order to obtain some type of consideration from the Milwaukee police. A review of these affidavits, the credibility of which is questionable, demonstrates that these inmates did not assert that the district attorney's office had made a deal or that Bridges' testimony was in exchange for a charge reduction. On the other hand, Bridges testified at trial that there was no such consideration or deal, and at the post-trial hearing the assistant district attorneys testified at length not only that there was no deal but that the charges against Bridges were reduced because they were not good cases. The court was entitled to believe Bridges, the police and prosecutors, and not to believe the inmates' affidavits. The best defendant can do, if these affidavits are considered, is raise a suspicion about some type of deal, but this is by innuendo. In Napue the fact is that there was a bargain between the witness and the prosecutor, while here the record shows that there was no bargain. Our review of the entire record convinces us that the prosecutor did not withhold knowledge of any kind of deal with Bridges which could prejudice defendant. Neither Napue nor the other cases relied upon provide defendant any basis for relief. By the Court. Order affirmed.