Opinion ID: 1442968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withholding Impeachment Evidence Regarding the Wangs

Text: Second, Zheng contends the government withheld impeachment evidence regarding two witnesses, Bin Wang and Lan Juan Wang. The Wangs were business partners of Zheng and Liu. They were involved in the Tea House and probably could have been tried as accomplices. Zheng claims the prosecution withheld information about attempts to provide immigration benefits to the Wangs and information about immunity or non-prosecution agreements for the Wangs. Zheng argues this information could have been used as impeachment evidence. The government denied the accusation that the Wangs had been granted immunity and likewise denied that information had been withheld from the defense. The district court rejected the argument that the prosecution had withheld impeachment evidence from the defense. The defense only offered the fact that Bin Wang admitted involvement in the Tea House and had not been indicted to support its contention that there was a grant of immunity. Defense counsel's speculation does not demonstrate that the district judge erred. The government admitted and eventually disclosed to the defense that it did inquire about the Wangs' eligibility for certain immigration benefits, learned they were ineligible for the benefits, and did not inform the Wangs of the inquiry. As the Wangs had no knowledge of the inquiry, the inquiry had no value as impeachment evidence. We conclude Zheng is not entitled to a new trial based on her allegations that the government withheld impeachment evidence regarding the Wangs. The district court did not clearly err by accepting as true the government's assertion that the Wangs were not granted immunity. Also, an inquiry regarding immigration benefits made by the government unbeknownst to the Wangs is not impeachment evidence.