Opinion ID: 59149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Giglio Violation

Text: Defendant Cleckler owned a business called “Ezy-Ryder” and co-owned another business called “Gene’s Marine.” Tanya Morris and Cleveland Brown are Cleckler’s former employees. Morris and Brown testified that they falsified documents to reflect sales by Ezy-Ryder that were actually attributable to Gene’s Marine. Cleckler submitted the fabricated documents to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) during its audit into the proper allocation of income among Gene’s Marine and Ezy-Ryder. In arguing on appeal for a new trial, Cleckler alleges that the government had immunity agreements with witnesses Morris and Brown and failed to disclose them, thereby violating the district court’s standing discovery order and its obligations under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972).1 1 Where a witness’s credibility is at issue, the government’s obligation under Brady includes the disclosure of “evidence of any understanding or agreement as to a future prosecution” of such witness for impeachment purposes. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154-55, 92 S. Ct. at 766 (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963)). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for new trial based on a claim that the government failed to disclose material evidence. United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1350 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1149 (2007). 2 Cleckler contends that information about these immunity agreements was material to his defense, as the government’s case hinged on the credibility of these witnesses. Cleckler has not shown reversible error for two reasons. First, Cleckler has not proved that either witness actually had an immunity agreement with the government in exchange for testimony against Cleckler. Brown denied having any discussion with IRS Agent Kyle Clarke regarding immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony.2 Morris did testify that when she met with Agent Clarke, she confirmed with him that she would not be prosecuted, but Morris never stated that Agent Clarke explained she would not be prosecuted in exchange for her testimony. There is no evidence that the government’s decision to forgo prosecution was in exchange for her testimony. Rather, Agent Clarke’s testimony demonstrates that no such immunity agreement existed. Agent Clarke testified about the meeting with Morris and Brown. According to Agent Clarke, after the meeting, Morris asked if she was “going to get in trouble for this.” Agent Clarke explained this IRS policy: before the IRS talks to a person, if the person is under investigation, the IRS must notify her that she is under investigation and does not have to answer any questions. 2 Morris did testify that Brown told her the government would not prosecute them if they provided information, but Morris also admitted that she only assumed Agent Clarke told this to Brown and she did not know if Brown ever actually talked to anyone from the government about immunity. 3 Agent Clarke told Morris that because he did not have an investigation on her and her IRS non-custody rights had not been read to her, he could not use anything she told him in prosecution against her. Thus, according to Agent Clarke, he merely informed Morris that her statements that day could not be used against her and never indicated that she would not be prosecuted based on her willingness to testify. Second, and even if a factual issue exists as to whether Morris and Brown believed they had immunity agreements, Cleckler has not shown that he suffered prejudice in the delayed disclosure of the alleged agreements. “Delayed disclosure may be grounds for reversal, but only if the defendant can show prejudice, e.g., the material came so late that it could not be effectively used.” United States v. Bueno-Sierra, 99 F.3d 375, 379 (11th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, Cleckler’s attorney had the full opportunity to crossexamine Morris, Brown, and Agent Clarke after Morris’s testimony, and, in fact, did question Morris and Brown about their understanding regarding potential prosecution. See id. at 379-80 (noting that prejudice was averted on Brady claim where, following delayed disclosure, additional cross-examination of the witness was allowed and impeaching material was fully explored). Accordingly, we cannot say the district court erred in denying Cleckler’s motion for a new trial. 4