Opinion ID: 4503119
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: palacios-solis’s motion for a mistrial

Text: 28 We recognize that the government stresses that the defendants did not verbally respond when asked the right-of-visit questions and pointed at each other when asked to identify the master of the vessel. However, we need not rely on that evidence to uphold the jury’s verdict here. 51 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 52 of 97 Palacios-Solis argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the government’s alleged Brady violation for not disclosing the CIC’s FLIR video on the Hamilton cutter and the fact that Petty Officer Tetzlaff observed critical events as recorded by that video. 29 Palacios-Solis takes issue with Officer Tetzlaff’s testimony that he observed on the video that one of the defendants “looked . . . very frantic trying to get the engine fixed.” Palacios-Solis has not shown that the prosecution’s failure to disclose this evidence violated his rights under Brady. The Supreme Court in Brady held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97 (emphasis added). Here, Palacios-Solis has not shown that the subject evidence was “favorable” or exculpatory, but concedes that Officer Tetzlaff’s testimony about the contents of the CIC’s FLIR video was “highly-incriminating” and “contradicted” the defendants’ innocent version of events. Palacios-Solis made the same concession when arguing his motion for a mistrial before the district court. Because the purportedly suppressed evidence is neither favorable nor material, Palacios-Solis failed to show a Brady violation and 29 “We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a mistrial.” Valois, 915 F.3d at 723 n.2. 52 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 53 of 97 the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial.