Court Opinion

ID: 9828021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:01:21.809745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:42.132740
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30077        Document: 00516881379             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 23-30077                                   FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                          September 1, 2023
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jmarreon Mack,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-29-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Post-affirmance on direct appeal to our court and denial of review by
   the Supreme Court, United States v. Mack, 857 F. App’x 798 (5th Cir. 2021),
   cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1134 (2022), Jmarreon Mack moved for a new trial
   under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, relying on newly-discovered
   evidence, see Rule 33 (b)(1), he claimed the Government had suppressed in

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30077      Document: 00516881379             Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                       No. 23-30077

   violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. The
   district court denied the motion, concluding the evidence was not material.
          Mack contests the denial. To assess the merits of a Rule 33 motion
   based on newly-discovered evidence, our court generally applies the Berry
   rule. United States v. Turner, 674 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2012) (outlining
   rule of Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511 (1851)). But when, as here, the movant
   asserts violations of Brady in his Rule 33 motion, our court instead applies the
   three-pronged Brady test. United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 247 (5th
   Cir. 2002). Brady requires the movant show: “(1) the evidence at issue is
   favorable to the defense, either because it is exculpatory or impeaching, (2)
   the prosecution suppressed the evidence, and (3) the evidence is material”.
   Murphy v. Davis, 901 F.3d 578, 597 (5th Cir. 2018). Only the materiality
   prong is at issue in this appeal.
          Evidence is material under Brady if there is a “reasonable probability”
   that its disclosure would have led to a different outcome. Kyles v. Whitley,
   514 U.S. 419, 433–34 (1995).         “The mere possibility that an item of
   undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have
   affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘materiality’ in the
   constitutional sense.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109–10 (1976).
   The defendant must instead show the evidence “could reasonably be taken
   to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in
   the verdict”. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435.
          “We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of
   discretion but consider alleged Brady violations de novo.” Turner, 674 F.3d
   at 428. The de novo review, however, must be “with deference to the factual
   findings underlying the district court’s decision”. Id. (quoting United States
   v. Severns, 559 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2009)).

                                            2
Case: 23-30077      Document: 00516881379          Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                    No. 23-30077

          Mack’s convictions stem from the discovery of contraband during a
   2018 traffic stop. His new-trial motion was based on evidence that the state
   trooper who initiated the stop later participated both in the fatal beating of a
   black motorist (the incident) and the alleged cover-up effort. Evidence of the
   trooper’s participation in the incident was available roughly a month before
   the suppression hearing but was not disclosed. Mack asserts the evidence
   could have altered his trial in two ways.
          First, he contends he could have prevailed on his motion to suppress
   the evidence seized in conjunction with the traffic stop by impeaching the
   trooper at the suppression hearing. Mack fails to establish the materiality of
   this contention. The sole issue in the suppression hearing was whether the
   traffic stop was justified at its inception. The district court concluded it was
   because Mack failed to properly signal a turn. This conclusion is supported
   by the trooper’s suppression-hearing testimony and his vehicle’s dash-
   camera video. (In that regard, our court held the video justified the stop.
   Mack, 857 F. App’x at 802 (“[B]oth [the trooper’s] testimony and the video
   evidence established [the trooper] did see Mack approach the left turn
   without a continuous signal active, then seconds later execute that turn.”
   (emphasis in original))).
          Second, Mack contends he could have used the impeachment
   evidence to induce jurors to reject the trooper’s trial testimony. Mack does
   not demonstrate that the new evidence provides any specific reason for
   questioning that testimony, only that it bears on the trooper’s general
   credibility—in other words, his character for truthfulness. But Mack’s broad
   condemnation of the trooper does little to explain how he would have used
   specific acts to impeach the trooper’s character for truthfulness. See Fed.
   R. Evid. 608(b); see also 28 Charles Alan Wright & Victor James Gold,
   Federal Practice & Procedure: Federal Rules of Evidence § 6118 (2d ed.),
   Westlaw (database updated Apr. 2023) (“[A] central purpose of Rule 608(b)

                                          3
Case: 23-30077     Document: 00516881379          Page: 4   Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                   No. 23-30077

   is to prevent the jury from hearing evidence that might cause it to draw the
   tenuous inference that, because the witness has committed bad acts, he is a
   bad person and, thus, a liar.”). Moreover, the trooper’s account of the facts
   is well corroborated. Jurors were able to compare his testimony with the
   testimony of another witness and footage from the trooper’s dash camera.
         AFFIRMED.

                                        4