Court Opinion

ID: 9658451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:00:25.452995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:24.681138
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207      Doc: 55         Filed: 08/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4207

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTOINE DION HARRIS, a/k/a Fattwan,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00065-RBS-RJK-
        1)

        Submitted: March 31, 2023                                         Decided: August 22, 2023

        Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Andrew M. Stewart, DENNIS, STEWART & KRISCHER PLLC, Arlington,
        Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
        Peter G. Osyf, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, Kristen S.
        Taylor, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207       Doc: 55         Filed: 08/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Antoine Dion Harris appeals his convictions and 121-month sentence for Hobbs Act

        robbery of a liquor store, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and for brandishing a firearm

        during the robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Harris challenges his convictions

        on two grounds: the district court abused its discretion by providing the jury with

        transcripts of trial testimony during deliberations, and the district court erred by denying

        his motion for a new trial based on an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

        (1963). We affirm.

               Harris contends that the district court abused its discretion by providing to the jury

        transcripts of witnesses’ trial testimony after the jury requested them. “We review a district

        court’s decision to respond to a jury’s question, and the form of that response, for an abuse

        of discretion.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 244 (4th Cir. 2007). “An error

        requires reversal only if it is prejudicial in the context of the record as a whole.” Id.

        Providing testimony transcripts to the jury is disfavored because the jury might place undue

        emphasis on the testimony. United States v. Rodgers, 109 F.3d 1138, 1143-44 (6th Cir.

        1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties’ agreements and the

        record on appeal, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. The district

        court gave the jury a transcript of all testimony, eliminating the danger that the jury would

        unduly emphasize a particular portion of the testimony. Further, the court instructed the

        jurors to rely on their perceptions of the testimony in real-time during trial even though

        they were given transcripts. See id. at 1145.

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207      Doc: 55        Filed: 08/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

              Harris also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial

        under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 based on an alleged Brady violation. Harris was charged with

        robbing a liquor store. Once he became a suspect, his friend, who was also a confidential

        informant, recognized the clothing worn by the suspect identified on the news as identical

        to the clothing the friend saw Harris wearing on the day of the robbery. After Harris was

        detained for the robbery, Harris’ brother shot the friend. During the investigation of the

        shooting, the friend misidentified two men seen with Harris’ brother before the shooting

        several blocks away at a convenience store. One of the misidentifications was confirmed

        to be wrong, and the other was only believed to be incorrect.           Harris alleges the

        Government’s failure to disclose these two misidentifications by the friend, who testified

        for the Government in Harris’ case, violated Brady.

              We review the denial of Harris’ motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.

        United States v. Parker, 790 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2015). “It is an abuse of discretion

        for the district court to commit a legal error—such as improperly determining whether

        there was a Brady violation—and that underlying legal determination is reviewed de novo.”

        United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 338 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

              To demonstrate a Brady violation, the proponent must show that the
              undisclosed evidence was (1) favorable to him either because it is
              exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) material to the defense, i.e.,
              prejudice must have ensued; and (3) that the prosecution had materials and
              failed to disclose them.

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207      Doc: 55         Filed: 08/22/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        United States v. Taylor, 942 F.3d 205, 225 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). A finding of materiality requires a reasonable probability that the evidence would

        have produced a different result. Parker, 790 F.3d at 558.

               Our review shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

        Harris’ motion for a new trial because the court properly found no Brady violation

        occurred. The undisclosed evidence Harris identifies is weak impeachment evidence,

        particularly because the friend knew Harris and spent time with him on the day of the

        robbery. Further, the friend’s testimony was not the only evidence linking Harris to the

        robbery; the liquor store manager on duty during the robbery identified Harris as the

        perpetrator in a photo array and at trial. The jury also viewed video surveillance footage

        of the robbery that corroborated the store manager’s testimony. Because Harris did not

        show a reasonable probability of a different outcome if he had been provided the

        undisclosed misidentification evidence, he failed to establish a Brady violation.

               Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     4