Opinion ID: 781934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Borland Report

Text: 12 In analyzing whether the two Borland Report claims-one raised as a Brady violation claim, and another raised as an ineffective assistance claim-relate back to the original section 2255 motion, the district court recognized the determination presented a reasonably close question. The district court explained Mandacina's original motion alleged the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, including various physical and other evidence obtained by the Gladstone Police Department and detectives involved in the investigation of Mr. Strada's murder. The original motion also alleged: 13 [T]he Government failed to properly disclose... any and all information related by Mr. Strada prior to his death in which Mr. Strada implicated any other person in any criminal activity, including any organized crime-related activity. Such information constitutes favorable and exculpatory information in that it establishes a motive for others besides Movant Mandacina to have killed or conspired to kill Mr. Strada.... [T]here is a strong factual basis to support a defense theory ... that Mr. Strada was killed not because of any statements he may have made regarding Movant Mandacina, but instead was killed by others who had a much stronger motive to retaliate against Mr. Strada. 14 The district court found the original and amended Brady claims both related to evidence obtained by Gladstone Police Department and were factually similar in terms of both time and type, citing Craycraft, 167 F.3d at 457. However, the district court concluded the amended Brady claim did not relate back to the original motion because the original motion made no mention of the Borland Report, and contained only generalized assertions that evidence obtained by the Gladstone Police Department was withheld. The district court declared [i]t is insufficient that the amended claims and the original ones are both Brady claims, just as it was insufficient in Craycraft that both sets of claims alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. 15 On this claim, the district court construed Craycraft too narrowly and committed an abuse of discretion. In Craycraft, this court determined the original complaint alleged deficiencies of representation distinctly separate from the deficiency alleged in his amendments. We explained that an attorney's failure to file an appeal represents a separate occurrence in both time and type from an attorney's failure to pursue a downward departure for substantial assistance or an attorney's failure to object to the type of methamphetamine. We explained this was so because the original petition alleging an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to file an appeal would unlikely provide notice of such a different sort of theory. Craycraft, 167 F.3d at 457. 16 Unlike Craycraft, Mandacina's original section 2255 motion does not allege Brady violations separate and distinct from the violation alleged in the supplemental motion. Although Mandacina's original motion did not refer specifically to the Borland Report, the original motion referred to Brady violations involving the government's failure to disclose any and all investigative information obtained by Gladstone Police Department detectives supporting a defense theory that, before he died, Strada implicated other persons involved in organized criminal activity who possessed a stronger motive than Mandacina to retaliate against Strada. The Brady claims in the original section 2255 motion referring to evidence of other suspects obtained by the Gladstone Police Department satisfy Rule 15(c) by providing the government with the notice that the statutes of limitation were intended to provide. As such, we conclude the amended Brady claim, alleging the government failed to disclose the Borland Report, relates back to the original motion. 17 Having determined the amended Brady claim concerning the Borland Report relates back to the original section 2255 motion, we proceed to review the district court's rejection of the claim. Ordinarily, we would remand the claim. However, the district court analyzed the merits of the amended Brady claim based on the Borland Report under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2) and (4), as well as under the actual innocence standard set forth in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). We review de novo allegations of Brady violations. United States v. McElhiney, 275 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). 18 To succeed on his amended Brady claim, Mandacina must establish (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence, (2) the evidence was favorable to him, and (3) the evidence was material to either his guilt or his punishment. United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321, 323-24 (8th Cir.2002). To establish materiality in the context of Brady, the accused must show there is a reasonable probability that if the allegedly suppressed evidence had been disclosed at trial the result of the proceeding would have been different. Drew v. United States, 46 F.3d 823, 828 (8th Cir.1995). A `reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine the reviewing court's confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. Id. 19 Following the magistrate judge's pretrial, in camera inspection of the police file, the government disclosed the Borland Report to Mandacina's trial counsel on August 16, 1993, approximately three weeks before trial began. Mandacina contends that, in addition to producing the actual Borland Report, the government had a duty to disclose the names of all suspects with strong motives to murder Strada, as well as all facts developed in the investigation of these suspects. The district court properly rejected this argument, declaring [e]vidence that a movant can discover through his own reasonable investigation is not illegally withheld by the Government within the meaning of § 2255(2), or under Brady,  citing United States v. Jones, 160 F.3d 473, 479 (8th Cir.1998). The district court correctly ruled nothing prevented Mandacina from conducting an expedited investigation of the Borland Report and, if necessary, requesting the trial be continued to allow for more investigation. Because the government did not suppress the Borland Report, Mandacina cannot prove a Brady violation.
20 The more difficult question presented on appeal is whether the amended ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the Borland Report relates back to the ineffective assistance claims contained in the original section 2255 motion. The original section 2255 motion alleged ten claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Only one of the ten original claims involved trial counsel's failure to discover exculpatory evidence. That particular claim alleged trial counsel failed to discover and investigate footprint evidence found at the crime scene by the Gladstone Police Department. In his original motion, Mandacina alleged that had trial counsel discovered and investigated the footprint evidence, the evidence would have revealed: (1) the footprints came from hiking boots, and (2) McGuire did not wear hiking boots, and, (3) when arrested, McGuire was not wearing hiking boots. Further, the footprints may have revealed a shoe size different from McGuire's shoe size. Such findings, Mandacina alleged, would have been favorable not only to McGuire, the convicted gunman, but derivatively to Mandacina. 21 While recognizing reasonable minds could differ on the issue, we conclude the district court properly interpreted Craycraft and did not abuse its discretion in finding the amended ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the Borland Report does not relate back to the original habeas motion. The claims are not sufficiently similar in both time and type. Although both claims relate to pretrial conduct by counsel and therefore occurred at a generally similar time, the claims are not similar in type. The original claim alleged a failure by counsel to discover allegedly exculpatory footprint evidence; whereas, the amended claim alleged a failure by counsel to investigate the Borland Report. We conclude the district court correctly ruled the amended ineffective assistance of counsel claim does not relate back to the original motion, and is therefore time barred.