Opinion ID: 6333805
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure of Brady Material

Text: Zayas also contends that the superseding indictment should have been dismissed because the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in a timely manner. To the extent that this evidence constitutes Brady material,96 it was made available to Zayas in the afternoon on the second day of a four-day trial. Zayas was therefore able to effectively use the evidence at trial, and any delayed disclosure was successfully cured. Zayas’s challenge centers on the government’s failure to timely disclose one of his statements that he believed the drugs that he delivered to Price were in white bags.97 He told the DEA investigators this twice. The first time was while being interviewed immediately following his arrest when he stated he was not sure but thought maybe they were white. This statement was disclosed to Zayas before trial. The second time was during the proffer interview with the DEA after Zayas’s initial agreement to plead guilty and was memorialized in an agent’s notes. These notes, however, were not provided to Zayas until late on the second day of trial and are the basis of 96 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963) (holding that the suppression of material evidence by the prosecution violates due process). 97 Appellant Br. at 12–13. 25 his Brady challenge. Zayas contends that the government’s delayed disclosure of the DEA’s notes resulted in prejudice because it greatly affected his trial strategy and interfered with his ability to examine some witnesses about the discrepancy. We disagree. Brady v. Maryland held the government’s suppression of evidence favorable to the defendant violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the [government].”98 Zayas and the government agree the statements described above are indeed Brady material. We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the government disclosure of Zayas’s statement was not delayed in a manner that prejudiced him at trial. A Brady violation occurs if the government does not disclose evidence favorable to the defendant that is material to either guilt or innocence, and this failure prejudices the defendant.99 Our prejudice inquiry turns on whether the defendant received a fair trial, one resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence, in the absence of the evidence.100 Here, there was no prejudice. Zayas’s assertion—that he believed he delivered drugs in white bags—was not new information. He raised this concern in his pro se letter seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. He also had his arrest interview statement expressing his belief that he delivered drugs in white bags. It is therefore difficult to see how failure to disclose the DEA’s note referencing this same belief would have affected Zayas’s trial strategy. Moreover, Zayas cross-examined several government witnesses about this discrepancy in the color of the drug bags, 98 Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. 99 Bansal, 663 F.3d at 670 (“Importantly, our ‘prejudice’ inquiry turns not on whether the defendant would have received a different verdict had the evidence been produced, but upon ‘whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.’” (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 289–90, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 144 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1999))). 100 Id. 26 the fact that a blue bag containing fentanyl was found near Price’s body, the references in text exchanges between Price and Dee about blue bags, and Zayas’s statement that he believed he delivered white bags. During cross-examination Trooper Bachman confirmed both blue and white bags were found at the scene of Price’s death. Trooper Quiroz was questioned about Dee’s text message about the “blue one” and about the blue glassine baggie found near Price in her room. Additionally, Special Agent Begley was cross-examined about Zayas’s post-arrest statement and about how no blue bags were found at Zayas’s house during the execution of a search warrant. To the extent that the government delayed disclosure of the DEA’s note of Zayas’s statement, Zayas was nevertheless able to use that information. He was clearly not prejudiced by any delayed disclosure of his own statement that he was well aware of, and the District Court correctly rejected his attempt to dismiss the superseding indictment on that ground.