Opinion ID: 152579
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suppression of Impeachment Evidence

Text: Gaitan-Ayala has waived any argument under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), by failing to raise it before the district court. The suppression of impeachment evidence therefore can be analyzed only under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the standard Gaitan-Ayala argued to the district court. Under that standard we must order a new trial if the undisclosed evidence was “material” — that is, if “there is a reasonable probability that . . . the result of the proceeding would have been different” had the evidence been disclosed. Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1076 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). All agree that the government proved the March 23, 2007 methamphetamine sale to undercover police officer Keane Tabanera. The series of recordings the government introduced created a strong chain of evidence that connected GaitanAyala link by link to the March 23 sale. The existence of the sale makes clear that 2 when Gaitan-Ayala spoke about chicken fighting during the recordings, he was using “chickens” as code for methamphetamine. The recordings also show that Gaitan-Ayala was involved in arranging the March 23 sale. In sum, the sale itself sufficiently explained what the recordings meant; there was no need for Corey Kaowili’s testimony to interpret them. There was other evidence linking Gaitan-Ayala to the methamphetamine distribution on March 23, 2007, and to methamphetamine trafficking more generally. Although Zaneta Nixon was impeached to some extent, she testified that on March 23, 2007, Hector Cruz had told her that Gaitan-Ayala had said to sell a pound of methamphetamine to Kaowili. Other government witnesses also testified to Gaitan-Ayala’s involvement in drug trafficking. These witnesses also were impeached to a limited extent, but their testimony as a whole constitutes strong evidence that Gaitan-Ayala was involved in the March 23, 2007 deal. Because there is not a reasonable probability that the jury would have come to a different verdict on count 7 if the additional impeachment evidence had been disclosed, the evidence was not material to the conviction on count 7. Neither was it material to the conviction on count 1, the conspiracy count. Count 7 was one of the overt acts charged in count 1, and thus the evidence that is sufficient to uphold count 7 is sufficient to uphold one of the overt acts in count 1. 3 Further, even if Kaowili’s testimony is disregarded, the rest of the collective testimony from the government’s witnesses constituted powerful evidence that Gaitan-Ayala had conspired with numerous persons to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. Gaitan-Ayala argues that because the district court ordered a new trial on three substantive counts, all of which were charged as overt acts in count 1, the conviction on count 1 must be overturned. We disagree. If a conviction for one or more substantive crimes is overturned because of factual rather than legal insufficiency, but at least one substantive crime that is charged in the conspiracy has a sufficient factual basis, the conspiracy conviction must stand. Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 56, 59 (1991). Because one of the substantive crimes charged in count 1 has a sufficient factual basis — and because the undisclosed evidence did not materially affect the proof of the conspiracy itself — the conviction on count 1 must be sustained. We note, however, that by failing to bring key impeachment evidence to the attention of the prosecutor, the federal law enforcement officers working on this case were guilty of a grave dereliction of duty and jeopardized the prosecution of the case. The government should take appropriate remedial or disciplinary action with its case agents to ensure effective internal communication, coordination, and 4 responses to discovery obligations, and should also impress upon the assistant U.S. attorneys that they must make sure that the case agents coordinate among themselves and keep the attorneys advised.