Opinion ID: 202871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Coaching

Text: During Dávila's cross-examination, he testified that immediately after he appeared before the grand jury on April 15, 2003, he met with Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Rebecca Kellogg to discuss his testimony. His attorney, FBI agent Brenda Díaz, and Cobián were also present. At the meeting, they discussed the payments made by Cobián to Rivera-Hernández. Apparently Cobián said that he had given Rivera-Hernández a cash payment in an envelope at the restaurant El Hipopótamo. Dávila disagreed and told Cobián that he did not see him give Rivera-Hernández an envelope filled with cash at the restaurant. Cobián responded that he had given Rivera-Hernández $40,000 in cash in $20 bills, and Dávila pointed out that $40,000 in $20 bills is 2,000 bills, which would not fit in an envelope. Dávila testified that at that point, his lawyer said that if the money was given at the El Hipopótamo, it had to have been given in Glad plastic bags. Then, AUSA Kellogg intervened and allegedly told Cobián and Dávila that they both had a light memory and that the money was paid by check. Dávila testified that she showed the checks to Cobián. After the meeting, Cobián testified before the grand jury that he never paid Rivera-Hernández in cash, only checks. Rivera-Hernández argues that [i]t was highly improper for the prosecutor to set up a meeting with two cooperating witnesses at the same time, in order to `discuss' their testimony and `refresh' their recollections so that conflicting statements would be avoided. Appellant's Br. 23. It is unsurprising that Rivera-Hernández does not cite any case law in support of the argument that this meeting was so improper as to warrant a new trial. Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike are entitled to prepare their witnesses. Moreover, the allegedly coached testimony, which related only to the form of payment (cash or check), is not central to the Government's case. Rivera-Hernández admits to having received the $100,000 and contests only what it paid for; his defense does not depend on Cobián's form of payment. As such, even assuming that the meeting between the AUSA and the cooperating witnesses was improper, it was not prejudicial because it did not so poison[ ] the well as to have likely affected the trial's outcome. United States v. Mooney, 315 F.3d 54, 60 (1st Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). [3]