State v. Washington, 1 CA-CR 14-0808

Washington was tried with co-defendants after a four-month wiretap investigation into a nationwide drug trafficking organization that used a private delivery service to move marijuana and cash.
She faced multiple counts including illegal control of an enterprise, conspiracy to transport/sell marijuana, conspiracy and substantive money laundering (2nd degree), and fraudulent schemes; some counts were dismissed pre-trial.
A 36-day dual-jury trial resulted in convictions on five counts; sentences included concurrent prison terms (longest 4.5 years) and two years’ probation for one count.
Warren Braithwaite, a co-defendant, cooperated and testified for the State after accepting a five-year plea offer; his testimony was important to the prosecution’s case.
Post-trial, Washington joined a co-defendant’s motion for new trial asserting a Brady violation: the prosecutor failed to disclose an email to Braithwaite’s counsel indicating the prosecutor might consider a better plea based on the “value” of Braithwaite’s testimony.
The superior court found the email was impeachment material (Brady violation) but concluded nondisclosure would not probably change the verdict given other evidence and extensive impeachment at trial; this ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Washington: no substantial evidence; convictions rest primarily on Braithwaite’s uncorroborated testimony	State: testimony of an accomplice and other wiretap/surveillance evidence sufficed	Affirmed — substantial evidence supported convictions; credibility and weight for jury to decide
Brady impeachment disclosure	Washington: prosecutor failed to disclose email promising to consider a better deal based on witness "value," which could impeach Braithwaite and affect outcome	State: conceded email should have been disclosed but argued disclosure would not probably change verdict given other evidence and impeachment already presented	Affirmed — nondisclosure was Brady error but not material; no reasonable probability of a different verdict

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality standard for suppressed impeachment/exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady materiality test)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (mere possibility that undisclosed evidence might help defense is insufficient)
State v. Neal, 143 Ariz. 93 (1984) (Rule 20 tests sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Montano, 121 Ariz. 147 (1978) (one credible witness can suffice for conviction)
State v. Fischer, 238 Ariz. 309 (App. 2015) (trial court may weigh credibility in post-verdict new-trial motions)
State v. Arvallo, 232 Ariz. 200 (App. 2013) (review standard for whether Brady violation warrants new trial)