Opinion ID: 223533
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion for an Unredacted Witness List

Text: Before trial, Guzman moved for additional discovery seeking the names, addresses and full statements of testifying witnesses to aid in preparation of his defense. In response, the government argued, in reliance on the court’s severance order, that it was permitted to temporarily withhold testifying witnesses’ names and identifying information for the witnesses’ protection until one week prior to the witnesses’ scheduled testimony. Guzman’s motion was denied. Joined by co-defendants Salazar, Juarez, and Susinka, Guzman argues on appeal that Nos. 09-1190, 09-1224, 09-1225, 09-1226, 09-1227, 09-1251 Page 9 the redacted statements were insufficient to permit him a meaningful opportunity to prepare a complete defense. He argues that he was prejudiced because the government’s case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony, the redacted police reports contained conflicting physical descriptions, and the timing of the disclosure of identifying information did not allow him sufficient time to prepare to cross-examine those witnesses. We review a court’s order regarding pretrial disclosure of information about government witnesses for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Pearson, 340 F.3d 459, 468 (7th Cir. 2003), judgment vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005). The government provided the defendants with unredacted copies of all cooperating gang member statements and their testimony more than a year before trial. The government also provided to the defense copies of police reports, ATF reports, and redacted versions of the grand jury statements of civilian witnesses more than two years before trial. Only the identifying information of the civilian witnesses was redacted, and only then to protect their safety. Once trial began, the defense received a list of upcoming government witnesses and unredacted statements one week in advance of each witness’ testimony. None of the defendants requested additional time to prepare for cross-examination of any of the civilian witnesses. Although he argues in vague terms that he was prejudiced by the timing of the disclosure, Guzman has not suggested what he might have done differently with additional time to prepare. With the safety of the witnesses in the balance, the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the government to withhold the identity of its civilian witnesses until one week before their testimony. Guzman also argues that withholding the identity of witnesses, particularly witnesses whose testimony might have been contradictory, amounted to a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Ordinarily, we review of a district court’s decision that evidence need not be produced for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652, 661 (7th Cir. 2009). Arguing that this issue was not addressed by the district court, Guzman contends that our review should be de novo. Under either standard, a Brady violation requires a showing that the withheld evidence was favorable to the defense, suppressed by the prosecution, and material to the defense. See United States v. Are, 590 F.3d 499, 510 (7th Cir. 2009). Guzman has not identified any such evidence, so we find no error.