United States v. Borda
941 F. Supp. 2d 16
D.D.C.2013Background
- Borda and Alvaran were convicted in 2010 for conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine with knowledge or intent it would be unlawfully imported.
- Defendants moved for judgment of acquittal (Rule 29) and for a new trial (Rule 33); those motions were denied.
- Defendants later sought dismissal for Brady violations and for a new trial, which the court also denied.
- Government introduced three Palm Oil deals in 2005 (Palm Oil One, Palm Oil Two, Chino Load) to prove knowledge or intent; Palm Oil One involved 1,553 kilograms transported toward Monterrey, Mexico.
- Witnesses and co-conspirators, many with prior drug convictions, testified; much evidence consisted of taped conversations and relied on credibility determinations by the jury.
- A post-trial Brady hearing was held; the court evaluated whether withheld materials were favorable, suppressed, and prejudicial; the court ultimately denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a Brady violation requiring reversal or a new trial? | Petta/Johnson: Brady requires materiality and suppression; withheld items could affect outcome. | Borda/Alvaran: Numerous materials were favorable or suppressed; non-disclosure prejudiced trial. | No material Brady violation; no reasonable probability of different result. |
| Did the Government suppress or withhold favorable information about Palm Oil One’s destination? | Defendants claim Mejia testimony and related notes were Brady material. | Government did not suppress material information; testimony and notes were not favorable or admissible. | No suppression or favorable material affecting outcome. |
| Did the failure to disclose specific trial exhibits or notes amount to Brady material? | Aracely documents and Chase notes could impeach key witnesses. | Disclosures were either inadmissible, non-favorable, or not Brady material. | No Brady violation; disclosures not material. |
| Were pretrial discovery difficulties or post-indictment motions meritorious to warrant dismissal? | Discovery difficulties biased defense preparation. | Despite delays, sufficient evidence supported conviction. | Brady analysis controls; no dismissal warranted. |
| Should the motion to dismiss for Brady violations or for a new trial be granted on cumulative grounds? | Cumulative Brady materials could collectively undermine trial. | Cumulative materials still fail materiality/suppression requirements. | Denied; cumulative Brady materials do not meet stringent standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (prejudice requires materiality; probability of different result)
- United States v. Pettiford, 627 F.3d 1223 (2010) (Brady prejudice evaluated in light of trial record and strategy)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for disclosure of exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Johnson, 519 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Brady standard applied in D.C. Circuit context)
- United States v. Cellis, 608 F.3d 818 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (factors for evaluating non-disclosure impact on guilt)