Robert Dekelaita v. United States, 108 F.4th 960

Background

Robert W. Dekelaita, an immigration attorney, was convicted by jury for orchestrating a scheme to file fraudulent asylum applications on behalf of clients, many of whom were Middle Eastern Christians.
At trial, multiple former clients testified, and the government disclosed it had not promised any immigration benefits for their testimony, though clients were told cooperation could simply be communicated to USCIS.
After losing his direct appeal, Dekelaita filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate his conviction/sentence based on alleged violations of his due process rights (Brady and Napue violations), arguing that the government unlawfully withheld information about immigration benefits provided to witnesses.
The district court allowed extensive discovery and held a week-long evidentiary hearing, ultimately denying relief on the grounds that any undisclosed benefits or assistance were immaterial to the outcome.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether evidence of undisclosed pre-trial and post-trial government benefits to witnesses was material and whether there was a Brady or Napue violation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the government fail to disclose material pre-trial benefits to witnesses, violating Brady?	Dekelaita argued undisclosed pre-trial government actions (e.g., immigration assistance) were material impeachment evidence.	USA argued either no such benefits were known to or promised to witnesses, or that the information was not material.	No Brady violation; pre-trial benefits not material; evidence was cumulative and would not have changed outcome.
Was the existence of post-trial assistance and leniency to witnesses a Brady violation?	Dekelaita claimed the possibility or understanding of post-trial help was a benefit, unknown to the jury, affecting witness credibility.	USA contended there were no promises or agreements; post-trial help does not require disclosure absent a quid pro quo or pre-trial promise.	No Brady violation; while an "insider" was available post-trial, the nondisclosure was not material.
Were the claims regarding undisclosed pre-trial benefits to certain witnesses procedurally defaulted or outside the scope of the motion?	Dekelaita argued the court erred by excluding these claims from consideration.	USA argued the district court correctly assessed the scope of claims based on what was raised and briefed.	Court declined to resolve scope; found in any event the evidence was not material.
Did the government's conduct violate Napue by knowingly permitting false testimony about benefits?	Dekelaita claimed witnesses lied about the absence of government promises.	USA argued that the witnesses truthfully testified that no promises were made.	No Napue violation; no false testimony about government promises.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Government must disclose material exculpatory or impeachment evidence to the defense at trial)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (It is a due process violation for the prosecution to permit false testimony regarding promises to witnesses)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (Brady duties apply even without defense request and encompass both exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (Non-disclosure of agreements with witnesses can constitute a due process violation)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (Collateral consequences doctrine for mootness in post-conviction appeals)
Wisehart v. Davis, 408 F.3d 321 (Analysis of types of Brady violations in the context of witness benefits)