Opinion ID: 223165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Kansas Stop; Weigel’s Testimony

Text: Turning to Nichols’ allegations regarding Weigel’s testimony, he has again failed to show prejudice from any failure by counsel to investigate Weigel’s activities earlier on the day of Nichols’ arrest. As duly noted by the district court, immaterial impeaching evidence is not sufficient grounds to order a new trial. United States v. Headman, 594 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3401 (2010). The reason for the rule is amply demonstrated here. Assuming Nichols’ allegations (Weigel incorrectly testified about investigating an accident prior to the traffic stop on May 22, 2202) are true and the prosecution was aware of the anomaly, the impeaching evidence does not undermine Weigel’s relevant testimony.11 In any event, Nichols does not explain how mistaken (perhaps even false) testimony regarding Weigel’s activities prior to the traffic stop would negate the justification for the stop.12 It certainly does not undermine White’s videotaped consent to search the trunk after the traffic stop was completed. 11 Apparently, Weigel’s trial testimony included his statement that, prior to the stop of White’s rental car, he was engaged in investigating an accident involving an injury. In the § 2255 proceedings, Nichols presented a letter from the Kansas Highway Patrol stating Weigel had not investigated an accident that day. Nichols also recently filed a motion with this court to supplement the record with a report of all accident investigations conducted by Weigel in 2002. None include an accident report for May 22, 2002. Nichols claims his new information demonstrates Weigel perjured himself, but it falls far short. “Perjury occurs when a witness testifying under oath or affirmation gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.” United States v. Flonnery, 630 F.3d 1280, 1287 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted and emphasis added). We grant his motion to supplement the record but it does him no good. There is no reason, on this record as supplemented, to presume Wiegel lied. The most one could reasonably say is his testimony was apparently erroneous. 12 Nichols also does not explain what would motivate the officer to deliberately lie about facts preceding this videotaped traffic stop and voluntary consent to search. - 15 - No doubt proper impeachment evidence can form the basis for a Brady violation. See United States v. Torres, 569 F.3d 1277, 1281 (10th Cir. 2009) (“In the event that the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule.”) (quotations omitted). But even if Nichols’ newly discovered evidence would place Weigel’s credibility at issue, Weigel’s testimony about the traffic stop and ultimate consensual search of the car was corroborated by a videotape of the events. And Nichols does not challenge the authenticity or accuracy of that evidence. The lost opportunity to impeach Weigel’s immaterial testimony in light of the videotaped corroboration of the material facts will not suffice to undermine our confidence in the jury’s verdict. Nichols’ request for a COA is denied and this matter is DISMISSED. His motion to supplement the record is GRANTED. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien