Opinion ID: 2745054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Effect on the Second Trial

Text: We reverse Mr. Biles‘s second conviction for attempted deceptive labeling because the government in the second trial heavily relied on the same evidence illegally obtained in the earlier January 8 incident, and there is ―a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense‖ in the first trial, as we have concluded that it should have been, the result of the second trial ―would have been different.‖ Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682.13 On February 4, 2011, the same Officer Davis arrested Mr. Biles for peddling 13 The government does not appear to dispute that the outcomes of both the first and second trials would have been different absent the ability to introduce the items in question. 26 counterfeit DVDs at the Florida Avenue flea market, again on an informant‘s tip. At trial on April 18, 2011, Officer Davis testified that Mr. Biles did not possess DVDs on his person and that she did not see Mr. Biles sell DVDs. But she did see a backpack about eight feet away that was ―distinct‖ to her because she ―recognized it‖ from her previous arrest.14 She ―went over and recovered the property and then [she] brought that property back to show him what [she] had recovered.‖ She then searched the backpack, which contained ―nothing that had Mr. Biles‘[s] name on it.‖ She nonetheless recognized it as Mr. Biles‘s because she had searched it on January 8, when his ―personal property was inside the book bag with his name on it.‖ The backpack had been leaning against a stack of crates, and atop the crates, Officer Davis found a shoe box containing 52 DVDs.15 In closing argument, the government emphasized that ―the one fact in this case that links and ties the defendant to these DVDs‖ is that Officer Davis ―saw the defendant‘s own bag, the bag she knew was his, next to the crate where the DVDs 14 The government offered this testimony to prove Mr. Biles‘s knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the DVDs—an element of the crime. Defense counsel objected, arguing that it ―has nothing to do with the knowledge element‖ and that ―[i]f it only goes to knowledge, she only needs to testify to what they were, not where they were, how she found them or any of the other information.‖ The court ruled that it would ―permit this testimony to stand for the purpose that [the government] has suggested.‖ 15 The government‘s expert later concluded that the DVDs ―were pirated‖ because they lacked the ―true name and address of manufacturer‖ and many ―were still in the movie theaters at the time of the individual‘s arrest.‖ 27 were located,‖ and ―[t]he fact that his bag is there is the one thing that harms their case, and they can‘t get past it.‖ Judge Alprin found Mr. Biles guilty based in part on ―pretty strong evidence in the case that this was Mr. Biles[‘s] backpack‖ and that ―the DVDs in controversy‖ were sitting near the bag. Defense counsel asked the trial court to reconsider and ―appreciate that the prior arrest may have influenced your decision,‖ to which the court replied: ―The arrest didn‘t. The circumstances of it did, though.‖ The government argues that Mr. Biles‘s Brady claim with respect to this second trial fails ―for the same reasons‖ as the first, but we have already rejected those reasons. Nor do we agree that Mr. Biles ―had enough time to make sufficient use of the material‖ in the second trial, where the court in the first trial foreclosed that opportunity by ruling that Mr. Biles lacked standing to challenge the search.16 Officer Davis‘s testimony that on January 8, Mr. Biles‘s ―personal property was inside the book bag with his name on it‖ became the predominant evidence of guilt at this trial. Nothing else so definitively linked Mr. Biles to the shoebox of DVDs, 16 See supra Part II.B. See also Kritsidimas v. Sheskin, 411 A.2d 370, 373 (D.C. 1980) (stating that suppression motions ―demand detailed judicial consideration of specific facts‖ and ―often require hearings and findings of fact,‖ which are ―the kinds of judicial exercises the ‗law of the case‘ doctrine is designed to prevent being repeated‖); Jenkins v. United States, 284 A.2d 460, 463-64 (D.C. 1971) (stating that rulings on pretrial suppression motions constitute the law of the case). 28 as the police did not see Mr. Biles selling DVDs and did not find DVDs in his physical possession when searching him incident to arrest. Absent this testimony, derived from the illegal search on January 8, we do not have confidence in the outcome of the trial.