Opinion ID: 4540010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of Julian Madgett

Text: Brennerman argues that Julian Madgett’s testimony at trial violated due process and his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and compulsory process because he was unable to obtain certain exculpatory personal notes from Madgett, and the government would not turn the notes over or otherwise retrieve them from ICBC. The government has an obligation under the Due Process Clause to make a timely disclosure of any exculpatory or impeaching evidence that is material and in its possession. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Additionally, the Jencks Act provides that, “[a]fter a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement . . . of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.” 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). 4 Brennerman’s argument claiming constitutional violations as a result of Madgett’s testimony is without merit. The government’s discovery and disclosure obligations extend only to information and documents in the government’s possession. United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998) (explaining that the Brady obligation applies only to evidence “that is known to the prosecutor”). The government insists that every document it received from ICBC was turned over to Brennerman and that it is not aware of the personal notes referenced by Brennerman. Therefore, the government has not violated its disclosure obligation. Nor was the government under any obligation under the Jencks Act to collect materials about Madgett that were not in the government’s possession. See United States v. Bermudez, 526 F.2d 89, 100 n.9 (2d Cir. 1975). Even if the documents exist and are material and favorable, Brennerman never sought a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, never made a timely request for a deposition under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15, and never asked the district court to issue letters rogatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1781 to obtain documentary evidence or secure testimony from the United Kingdom where ICBC maintains its records. The only indication that such documents are extant comes from Brennerman’s bare assertions.