Locurto v. United States, 1:10-cv-04589

Petitioner Stephen LoCurto filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (amended 2014) alleging the Government suppressed impeachment evidence about witness Frank Lino concerning Lino’s alleged involvement in the 1988 murder of Wilfred "Willie Boy" Johnson and long‑term heroin dealing.
LoCurto sought broad discovery (surveillance logs, FBI 302s, DEA/ATF reports, informant affidavits) regarding Johnson’s murder and Lino’s criminal history.
LoCurto argued nondisclosure violated Brady/Giglio and Napue (false testimony) and that the undisclosed material would likely change the trial outcome.
At trial, Lino had testified to multiple murders and other crimes and was vigorously cross‑examined about those crimes and drug activity.
The jury convicted LoCurto of racketeering conspiracy and found the Government proved three predicate racketeering acts (including the murder of Joseph Platia); independent evidence (cooperator testimony, LoCurto stopped with a loaded revolver matching ballistics, and guilty pleas to narcotics conspiracy) supported the convictions.
The district court denied the discovery motion for lack of "good cause," concluding any new impeachment information about Lino would be cumulative and not material under Brady/Giglio and that any alleged perjury regarding a collateral matter would not likely have affected the jury’s verdict under Napue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LoCurto should get discovery to develop Brady/Giglio claim that Government suppressed impeachment evidence about Lino	LoCurto: undisclosed evidence of Lino’s role in killing an FBI informant and heroin dealing would substantially damage Lino’s credibility and could change the verdict	Government (and court): Lino’s credibility was already extensively attacked at trial; additional impeachment would be cumulative and not material	Denied — no good cause; impeachment evidence would be cumulative and not material under Brady/Giglio
Whether LoCurto should get discovery to develop Napue claim that Lino gave perjured testimony and prosecution knew/suppressed it	LoCurto: Lino omitted involvement in killing an FBI informant; prosecution knew and suppressed it, so conviction should be set aside	Government/court: alleged false testimony was collateral, did not contradict Lino’s trial testimony about LoCurto, and would not reasonably have affected jurors given independent evidence	Denied — no reasonable likelihood the alleged perjury affected the jury; discovery not warranted

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (Brady rule applies to impeachment evidence regarding witness credibility)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (conviction must be set aside if prosecution used known perjured testimony that could affect the verdict)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (elements of Brady claim and materiality analysis)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability of a different result)
United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2007) (new impeachment that is merely cumulative is not material)
United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) (materiality requirement for undisclosed favorable evidence)
United States v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1996) (impeachment may be material only where conviction rests on single witness or no independent evidence)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Napue standard and reasonable likelihood test)
Ostrer v. United States, 577 F.2d 782 (2d Cir. 1978) (cumulative impeachment insufficient to warrant new trial)
United States v. Reves, 49 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1995) (false testimony on collateral matters does not warrant reversal if it does not refute testimony against defendant)