Opinion ID: 3049934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: prosecutorial misconduct in mcnair trial

Text: As to their convictions in the McNair trial, defendants PUGH and Roland 98 Pugh argue that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by (1) failing to correct Grady Pugh’s false testimony, and (2) eliciting additional false testimony from Grady Pugh, thereby violating their due process rights.75 Specifically, these defendants argue that at trial Grady Pugh falsely denied having previously said he delivered cash bribes to McNair before a May 24, 2000 trip to buy carpet and falsely testified that he delivered the money after that May 24, 2000 trip. These cash bribes were part of Counts 13 and 14. During the McNair trial, the time line of these events was at issue because it determined whether Counts 13 and 14 were barred by the statute of limitations.76 The jury acquitted PUGH and Roland Pugh on Counts 13 and 14.77 While the acquittal moots the statute of limitations issue, the time line of the cash bribes remains relevant only as to Count 1 (bribery conspiracy) and only because those cash bribes were alleged as overt 75 PUGH’s brief specifically adopts Roland Pugh’s prosecutorial misconduct arguments, and Roland Pugh adopts all relevant portions of PUGH’s brief as to all issues. McNair, RAST, Bobby Rast, Danny Rast, FWDE, and Dougherty adopt all arguments of all defendants as to all issues. 76 The parties referenced the five-year limitations period for Counts 13 and 14 as from August 26, 2000 to August 26, 2005, the date the Second Supseding Indictment was submitted, which added Roland Pugh as a defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Count 13 charged PUGH and Yessick with giving McNair $20,000 in cash. Count 14 charged PUGH and Roland Pugh with giving McNair at least $10,000 in cash in January 2001. However, if the cash bribes occurred before the May 24, 2000 carpet purchase in Georgia, the defendants argued Counts 13 and 14 would be barred by the five-year statute of limitations. 77 While PUGH was convicted on multiple counts, Roland Pugh was convicted on only Count 1, the bribery conspiracy count. Other than some documentary evidence, Grady Pugh was the only witness testifying against Roland Pugh as to Count 1. 99 acts in furtherance of the overall conspiracy to bribe McNair, for which PUGH and Roland Pugh were convicted. On appeal PUGH and Roland Pugh argue Grady Pugh’s false testimony about the time line goes to his credibility and that if the jury knew he was lying, this could have affected the guilty verdict on Count 1.78 To establish prosecutorial misconduct for the use of false testimony, a defendant must show the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony, or failed to correct what he subsequently learned was false testimony, and that the falsehood was material.79 See United States v. Woodruff, 296 F.3d 1041, 1043 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036, 1041 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Alzate, 47 F.3d 1103, 1110 (11th Cir. 1995); see also Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 270-71, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 1177-78 (1959). Perjury is defined as testimony “given with the willful intent to provide false testimony and not as a result of a mistake, confusion, or faulty memory.” United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1277 n.34 (11th Cir. 2008). “When a government lawyer elicits false testimony that goes to a witness’s credibility, we will consider it sufficiently material to warrant a new trial only 78 For the conspiracy charged in Count 1, it did not matter whether the cash deliveries were within the statute of limitations because there was ample evidence of other overt acts within the five-year statute of limitations period. See United States v. Arias, 431 F.3d 1327, 1340 (11th Cir. 2005). 79 We review a claim of prosecutorial misconduct de novo because it is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Duran, 596 F.3d 1283, 1299 (11th Cir. 2010). 100 when the estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of the given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence.” United States v. Cole, 755 F.2d 748, 763 (11th Cir. 1985) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). In other words, “[t]he materiality element is satisfied if the false testimony could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Dickerson, 248 F.3d at 1041 (quotation marks omitted). The false testimony is deemed material if there is a reasonable likelihood the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. Alzate, 47 F.3d at 1110; United States v. Barham, 595 F.2d 231, 242 (5th Cir. 1979). In addition, a prior statement that is merely inconsistent with a government witness’s testimony is insufficient to establish prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Michael, 17 F.3d 1383, 1385 (11th Cir. 1994) (“We refuse to impute knowledge of falsity to the prosecutor where a key government witness’[s] testimony is in conflict with another’s statement or testimony.”); Hays v. Alabama, 85 F.3d 1492, 1499 (11th Cir. 1996) (determining there was no due process violation where “there has been no showing that [the witness’s] later, rather than earlier, testimony was false”); United States v. Gibbs, 662 F.2d 728, 730 (11th Cir. 1981) (“Though knowing prosecutorial use of false evidence or perjured testimony violates due process . . . it is not enough that the testimony . . . is inconsistent with 101 prior statements.”); United States v. Brown, 634 F.2d 819, 827 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[D]ue process is not implicated by the prosecution’s introduction or allowance of false or perjured testimony unless the prosecution actually knows or believes the testimony to be false or perjured; it is not enough that the testimony is challenged by another witness or is inconsistent with prior statements.”).
The false testimony claim stems from notes the prosecutor made during Grady Pugh’s two meetings with the prosecutor for plea negotiations on June 17 and 21, 2005. An FBI agent, counsel for Grady Pugh, and separate corporate counsel for PUGH were also present. The prosecutor’s 2005 notes refer to Grady Pugh’s two cash deliveries to McNair and his trip to Georgia where Grady purchased carpet for McNair on May 24, 2000 (for which Grady signed a PUGH company check bearing that date). The government disclosed the prosecutor’s notes to defense counsel several months before trial. At the McNair trial, Grady Pugh testified he delivered two envelopes of cash to McNair — the first at McNair’s studio and the second at McNair’s home at Christmas 2000 — both after he (Grady Pugh) took a flight to Georgia to purchase the carpet on May 24, 2000. In response, PUGH’s counsel sought to impeach Grady Pugh using the prosecutor’s 2005 notes, attempting to show the notes 102 reflected Grady Pugh gave both cash envelopes to McNair before Grady Pugh purchased the carpet on May 24, 2000. PUGH’s counsel showed Grady Pugh the notes of the June 17, 2005 meeting indicating Grady delivered two cash envelopes to McNair: [GRADY PUGH]: It says in here that I delivered money to the studio and to his house, in these notes. . . . [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: Does it not say, the next time that Roland [Pugh] asked Grady [Pugh] to deliver an envelope of money, it was to McNair, was at McNair’s studio? [GRADY PUGH]: It says that, yes, sir. [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: Okay. Despite that, that does not refresh your recollection? [GRADY PUGH]: Despite what it says, it’s not true.80 PUGH’s counsel then showed Grady Pugh the prosecutor’s notes from the June 21, 2005 meeting and asked if he recalled that he told the prosecutor the two cash 80 The June 17, 2005 meeting notes state: –Roland Pugh asked Grady to deliver the money to McNair –One Roland money [sic] –Grady recalls being at Northport and having to take the envelope, which was a half inch thick, to McNair’s house –Grady and McNair sat down together in the house and chatted and then Grady left the envelope there between the two of them where McNair saw him put it –The next time that Roland asked Grady to deliver an envelope of money it was to McNair was at McNair Studio –McNair was late and Grady had to wait for him –When McNair showed up, Grady and McNair went to the van where they chatted and then Grady left the envelope there where McNair saw him put it down –This delivery of money was after the shell of the studio had been erected –Roland Pugh called Grady and told him that “McNair needs to look at some carpet” (or words to that effect) and that McNair needed RPC [PUGH] to make the deposit on the carpet –Grady got the company plane to Birmingham and took McNair’s daughter and Bill Bailey to LaGrange, Georgia to pick out the carpet 103 deliveries were before the carpet trip, but Grady replied he did not recall saying it in that order as follows: [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: I want to direct you to the portion of [the prosecutor’s] notes which read, Grady [Pugh] delivered the second envelope of cash to McNair at the studio. .... [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: And after that, I want to direct your attention to the portion of [the prosecutor’s] notes that say, Bill Bailey was there. And it continues, quote “best I recall” close quote, this was the first time Grady [Pugh] met Bill Bailey; and then it continues. Months later, Grady [Pugh] flew to Georgia for the carpet. . . . Does this refresh your memory that when you met with [the prosecutor and an FBI agent], that the sequence you provided was that the first delivery was to the house, the second delivery was to the studio, and they were both done months before you flew to Georgia for the carpet? [GRADY PUGH]: I don’t recall saying it in that order. The order that I remember it in, is the order that I told you Friday. I went to the studio first, then I went to the carpet, and then I went to Mr. McNair’s house; and that’s the way I remember it. That’s the way it happened.[81] 81 The June 21, 2005 meeting notes state: –Grady thinks the RPC [PUGH] office was still in Northport when he delivered the first envelope to McNair –Grady had to drive from Northport –Grady thinks the second McNair envelope was when RPC’s office was in the trailers in Avondale .... –Grady delivered the second envelope of cash to McNair at the studio –He and McNair had already spoken inside the studio and then went to McNair’s van –Bill Bailey was there when Grady delivered the cash to McNair Studio but Grady does not appear to recall talking to Bailey about the money he was giving to McNair 104 PUGH’s counsel suggested to the district court that he might call the prosecutor as a witness. The Court responded: “I think whatever you’d be calling him for doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, and I’m not going to let it be done just to cause friction or embarrassment or whatever. So my strong inclination will be not to allow it.” The defense did not call the prosecutor to testify. In closing argument, PUGH’s counsel argued Grady Pugh lied about the time line of these events, that his cash deliveries occurred outside the statute of limitations, and that the prosecutor’s notes supported this argument. PUGH’s counsel also recited portions of the prosecutor’s notes.82 –‘Best I recall’ this was the first time Grady met Bill Bailey –The weather was sunny but not cold –Months later, Grady flew to Georgia for the carpet 82 In closing argument, PUGH’s counsel stated: And then you heard on Monday, I finally got to show in Mr. Dillon’s notes of that very interview. And he read to you from Mr. Dillon’s own notes of the June 17th meetings. And he read to you, where they were talking chronologically in the June 17th, the first meeting, where he said that he delivered a note, an envelope to Mr. McNair’s house, and the next time he was asked to deliver the envelope to the studio, and that then he was talking chronologically about going to look for carpet. And it was even clearer when he got into the notes of the second interview where he said he delivered the second envelope of cash to McNair at the studio, the best he could recall. Remember I even got him -- I think it was in quotes. Best I recall, this was the first time Grady met Bill Bailey. The next line, months later, Grady flew to Georgia for the carpet. Those are from Mr. Dillon’s own notes of that meeting and that’s what you heard the testimony was. Those do not establish any payment in July, whatsoever. They don’t establish any payment that’s been alleged in this case whatsoever. . . . He gave even another story while on the stand. I was asking about the sequence and I was asking him whether these notes from his meeting refreshed his memory and he said I don’t recall saying it in that order. The order that I remember it in is the order that I told you Friday. I went to the studio first, then I went to the carpet, and then 105 We conclude defendants PUGH and Roland Pugh have not met their burden to show Grady Pugh’s testimony was actually false, much less that the government knew it was false. First, the notes themselves are in bullet form and contain no dates nor any explicit indication that they were necessarily intended to be read in chronological order. At trial Grady Pugh agreed he had a “clear recollection” of what he said during the meetings. At trial Grady Pugh reviewed the notes on defense counsel’s instruction and stated that the notes were “not laid out in the order that things happened,” that he did not “recall saying it in that order,” and, “[d]espite what it says, it’s not true.”83 Importantly, the documentary evidence is consistent with Grady Pugh’s trial testimony that he delivered the money after the carpet purchase. The government introduced these checks: on May 24, 2000, Grady Pugh signed a $4,820.81 PUGH check made out to the carpet store; on July 18-19, 2000, Grady Pugh, Roland Pugh, and Yessick signed checks to cash totaling $9,000; and from December 15 to 22, 2000, Roland Pugh signed $38,750 in checks to Roland Pugh’s daughters-in-law and to cash. Further, other witnesses corroborated Grady Pugh’s I went to Mr. McNair’s house, that’s the way I remember it; and that’s the way it happened. 83 Nothing in the record indicates that after the 2005 meetings, Grady Pugh checked or adopted the prosecutor’s notes. 106 trial testimony. For example, Bill Bailey testified he flew with Grady to pick out carpet and saw him “again” at the studio, where they “talked about airplanes for a second” before Bailey asked Grady “if he was here to help Chris McNair again,” to which Grady answered yes. Even assuming that Grady Pugh’s denials of prior inconsistency were false or his time line of events was false, defendants, at a minimum, have not shown the prosecutor knew Grady Pugh’s testimony was false, especially given how the documents and other witnesses corroborated his testimony. In any event, defendants have shown no reversible error. The jury heard the relevant portions of the notes read into the record when PUGH’s counsel was cross-examining Grady Pugh. During closing arguments, PUGH’s counsel argued that the prosecutor’s notes contradicted Grady Pugh’s trial testimony and again recited relevant portions of the notes. Defense counsel thoroughly and exhaustively cross-examined Grady Pugh. Defense counsel pointed out other inconsistencies within Grady Pugh’s trial testimony and in his grand jury testimony. The jury was also well aware Grady Pugh had made a plea deal and that the government’s assessment of his cooperation would impact his eventual sentence. The jury had the information it needed to make an informed decision as to Grady Pugh’s credibility. See United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 107 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[C]redibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury.”) (quotation marks omitted). “Therefore, because we find that the uncorrected, allegedly perjurious statements do not ‘undermine confidence in the verdict,’” we reject defendants’ prosecutorial misconduct claims. Dickerson, 248 F.3d at 1042 (citations omitted).84
Defendants PUGH and Roland Pugh also claim the prosecutor intentionally elicited from Grady Pugh the false testimony that “everyone was taking notes” at the 2005 meetings, even though the prosecutor knew he had instructed the FBI agent not to take notes.85 At trial the prosecutor asked Grady Pugh about the note-taking: Q: And when you signed that plea agreement, Mr. Pugh, had you already met with us on two occasions at the FBI office? A: Yes, sir. Q: And when you met with the FBI and myself, was your lawyer there? A: Yes, sir. Q: And was the company lawyer there? A: Yes, sir. 84 We note the defense did not call others present at the 2005 meetings as to what Grady Pugh said. And regardless of whether others at the 2005 meetings were taking notes, defense counsel still could have called them to elicit their personal recollection of what Grady Pugh said. However, we need not rely on this fact as it is abundantly clear counsel effectively crossexamined Grady Pugh. 85 The prosecutor acknowledged he told the FBI agent not to take notes during the 2005 meetings. 108 Q: And was everybody taking notes? A: Yes, sir. On cross-examination, the defense attempted to clarify this assertion, but Grady Pugh stated that it “looked to me like everybody was taking notes.” PUGH’s corporate counsel asked Grady Pugh, “[a]nd do you remember that I objected and I indicated that I would take notes?” The foregoing colloquy is ambiguous as to whether the prosecutor was referring to the lawyers in the room or also to the FBI agent. Grady Pugh reasonably could have taken “everybody” to mean the two lawyers about whom the defense had just asked. Moreover, while the record shows the FBI agent was not taking notes, defendants submitted no evidence that Grady Pugh’s counsel or PUGH’s counsel were not taking notes.86 In sum, the defense has not met its burden to show the prosecutor believed or knew Grady Pugh’s note-taking testimony was false. In any event, the defendants have not shown a reasonable likelihood that correction on this particular point, even if it did constitute “false testimony,” could have changed the jury’s evaluation of Grady Pugh’s overall 86 The government stresses it would have been remarkable had Grady Pugh’s counsel not taken notes during his own client’s debriefings and plea negotiations in these two meetings. The prosecutor also points out that there is a reference in a December 2005 hearing before the magistrate judge that there was note-taking by Grady Pugh and PUGH’s counsel at these meetings. We need not rely on that reference because it is enough to say defendants submitted no evidence that Grady Pugh or PUGH’s counsel were not taking notes and have not carried their burden to show Grady Pugh’s testimony was false. 109 credibility. Therefore, it does not undermine confidence in the verdict. See Dickerson, 248 F.3d at 1041.