Opinion ID: 3049934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grady Pugh’s Testimony About Cash Deliveries

Text: The false testimony claim stems from notes the prosecutor made during Grady Pugh’s two meetings with the prosecutor for plea negotiations on June 17 and 21, 2005. An FBI agent, counsel for Grady Pugh, and separate corporate counsel for PUGH were also present. The prosecutor’s 2005 notes refer to Grady Pugh’s two cash deliveries to McNair and his trip to Georgia where Grady purchased carpet for McNair on May 24, 2000 (for which Grady signed a PUGH company check bearing that date). The government disclosed the prosecutor’s notes to defense counsel several months before trial. At the McNair trial, Grady Pugh testified he delivered two envelopes of cash to McNair — the first at McNair’s studio and the second at McNair’s home at Christmas 2000 — both after he (Grady Pugh) took a flight to Georgia to purchase the carpet on May 24, 2000. In response, PUGH’s counsel sought to impeach Grady Pugh using the prosecutor’s 2005 notes, attempting to show the notes 102 reflected Grady Pugh gave both cash envelopes to McNair before Grady Pugh purchased the carpet on May 24, 2000. PUGH’s counsel showed Grady Pugh the notes of the June 17, 2005 meeting indicating Grady delivered two cash envelopes to McNair: [GRADY PUGH]: It says in here that I delivered money to the studio and to his house, in these notes. . . . [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: Does it not say, the next time that Roland [Pugh] asked Grady [Pugh] to deliver an envelope of money, it was to McNair, was at McNair’s studio? [GRADY PUGH]: It says that, yes, sir. [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: Okay. Despite that, that does not refresh your recollection? [GRADY PUGH]: Despite what it says, it’s not true.80 PUGH’s counsel then showed Grady Pugh the prosecutor’s notes from the June 21, 2005 meeting and asked if he recalled that he told the prosecutor the two cash 80 The June 17, 2005 meeting notes state: –Roland Pugh asked Grady to deliver the money to McNair –One Roland money [sic] –Grady recalls being at Northport and having to take the envelope, which was a half inch thick, to McNair’s house –Grady and McNair sat down together in the house and chatted and then Grady left the envelope there between the two of them where McNair saw him put it –The next time that Roland asked Grady to deliver an envelope of money it was to McNair was at McNair Studio –McNair was late and Grady had to wait for him –When McNair showed up, Grady and McNair went to the van where they chatted and then Grady left the envelope there where McNair saw him put it down –This delivery of money was after the shell of the studio had been erected –Roland Pugh called Grady and told him that “McNair needs to look at some carpet” (or words to that effect) and that McNair needed RPC [PUGH] to make the deposit on the carpet –Grady got the company plane to Birmingham and took McNair’s daughter and Bill Bailey to LaGrange, Georgia to pick out the carpet 103 deliveries were before the carpet trip, but Grady replied he did not recall saying it in that order as follows: [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: I want to direct you to the portion of [the prosecutor’s] notes which read, Grady [Pugh] delivered the second envelope of cash to McNair at the studio. .... [PUGH’S COUNSEL]: And after that, I want to direct your attention to the portion of [the prosecutor’s] notes that say, Bill Bailey was there. And it continues, quote “best I recall” close quote, this was the first time Grady [Pugh] met Bill Bailey; and then it continues. Months later, Grady [Pugh] flew to Georgia for the carpet. . . . Does this refresh your memory that when you met with [the prosecutor and an FBI agent], that the sequence you provided was that the first delivery was to the house, the second delivery was to the studio, and they were both done months before you flew to Georgia for the carpet? [GRADY PUGH]: I don’t recall saying it in that order. The order that I remember it in, is the order that I told you Friday. I went to the studio first, then I went to the carpet, and then I went to Mr. McNair’s house; and that’s the way I remember it. That’s the way it happened.[81] 81 The June 21, 2005 meeting notes state: –Grady thinks the RPC [PUGH] office was still in Northport when he delivered the first envelope to McNair –Grady had to drive from Northport –Grady thinks the second McNair envelope was when RPC’s office was in the trailers in Avondale .... –Grady delivered the second envelope of cash to McNair at the studio –He and McNair had already spoken inside the studio and then went to McNair’s van –Bill Bailey was there when Grady delivered the cash to McNair Studio but Grady does not appear to recall talking to Bailey about the money he was giving to McNair 104 PUGH’s counsel suggested to the district court that he might call the prosecutor as a witness. The Court responded: “I think whatever you’d be calling him for doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, and I’m not going to let it be done just to cause friction or embarrassment or whatever. So my strong inclination will be not to allow it.” The defense did not call the prosecutor to testify. In closing argument, PUGH’s counsel argued Grady Pugh lied about the time line of these events, that his cash deliveries occurred outside the statute of limitations, and that the prosecutor’s notes supported this argument. PUGH’s counsel also recited portions of the prosecutor’s notes.82 –‘Best I recall’ this was the first time Grady met Bill Bailey –The weather was sunny but not cold –Months later, Grady flew to Georgia for the carpet 82 In closing argument, PUGH’s counsel stated: And then you heard on Monday, I finally got to show in Mr. Dillon’s notes of that very interview. And he read to you from Mr. Dillon’s own notes of the June 17th meetings. And he read to you, where they were talking chronologically in the June 17th, the first meeting, where he said that he delivered a note, an envelope to Mr. McNair’s house, and the next time he was asked to deliver the envelope to the studio, and that then he was talking chronologically about going to look for carpet. And it was even clearer when he got into the notes of the second interview where he said he delivered the second envelope of cash to McNair at the studio, the best he could recall. Remember I even got him -- I think it was in quotes. Best I recall, this was the first time Grady met Bill Bailey. The next line, months later, Grady flew to Georgia for the carpet. Those are from Mr. Dillon’s own notes of that meeting and that’s what you heard the testimony was. Those do not establish any payment in July, whatsoever. They don’t establish any payment that’s been alleged in this case whatsoever. . . . He gave even another story while on the stand. I was asking about the sequence and I was asking him whether these notes from his meeting refreshed his memory and he said I don’t recall saying it in that order. The order that I remember it in is the order that I told you Friday. I went to the studio first, then I went to the carpet, and then 105 We conclude defendants PUGH and Roland Pugh have not met their burden to show Grady Pugh’s testimony was actually false, much less that the government knew it was false. First, the notes themselves are in bullet form and contain no dates nor any explicit indication that they were necessarily intended to be read in chronological order. At trial Grady Pugh agreed he had a “clear recollection” of what he said during the meetings. At trial Grady Pugh reviewed the notes on defense counsel’s instruction and stated that the notes were “not laid out in the order that things happened,” that he did not “recall saying it in that order,” and, “[d]espite what it says, it’s not true.”83 Importantly, the documentary evidence is consistent with Grady Pugh’s trial testimony that he delivered the money after the carpet purchase. The government introduced these checks: on May 24, 2000, Grady Pugh signed a $4,820.81 PUGH check made out to the carpet store; on July 18-19, 2000, Grady Pugh, Roland Pugh, and Yessick signed checks to cash totaling $9,000; and from December 15 to 22, 2000, Roland Pugh signed $38,750 in checks to Roland Pugh’s daughters-in-law and to cash. Further, other witnesses corroborated Grady Pugh’s I went to Mr. McNair’s house, that’s the way I remember it; and that’s the way it happened. 83 Nothing in the record indicates that after the 2005 meetings, Grady Pugh checked or adopted the prosecutor’s notes. 106 trial testimony. For example, Bill Bailey testified he flew with Grady to pick out carpet and saw him “again” at the studio, where they “talked about airplanes for a second” before Bailey asked Grady “if he was here to help Chris McNair again,” to which Grady answered yes. Even assuming that Grady Pugh’s denials of prior inconsistency were false or his time line of events was false, defendants, at a minimum, have not shown the prosecutor knew Grady Pugh’s testimony was false, especially given how the documents and other witnesses corroborated his testimony. In any event, defendants have shown no reversible error. The jury heard the relevant portions of the notes read into the record when PUGH’s counsel was cross-examining Grady Pugh. During closing arguments, PUGH’s counsel argued that the prosecutor’s notes contradicted Grady Pugh’s trial testimony and again recited relevant portions of the notes. Defense counsel thoroughly and exhaustively cross-examined Grady Pugh. Defense counsel pointed out other inconsistencies within Grady Pugh’s trial testimony and in his grand jury testimony. The jury was also well aware Grady Pugh had made a plea deal and that the government’s assessment of his cooperation would impact his eventual sentence. The jury had the information it needed to make an informed decision as to Grady Pugh’s credibility. See United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 107 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[C]redibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury.”) (quotation marks omitted). “Therefore, because we find that the uncorrected, allegedly perjurious statements do not ‘undermine confidence in the verdict,’” we reject defendants’ prosecutorial misconduct claims. Dickerson, 248 F.3d at 1042 (citations omitted).84