United States v. Brown
650 F.3d 581
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Brown challenges perjury/obstruction convictions on Brady grounds for pre-trial withholding of favorable evidence; government allegedly possessed three items: FBI Fastow notes, Senate McMahon notes, and Zrike grand jury/SEC transcript; government gave summary letters instead of raw notes and relied on in-camera review; district court ruled no Brady violation or materiality; appellate panel reviews de novo with exception for in-camera portions; substantial trial record showed oral promises to repurchase related to Enron–Merrill Lynch barges; ultimate issue is whether suppressed evidence would have changed outcome.
- At trial, Enron barged assets were sold to Merrill Lynch with later alleged buyback arrangements; evidence suggested Enron promised to buy back for a six-month window, though some testimony framed it as “best efforts” rather than a guarantee; key witnesses and documents supported Brown’s guilt on perjury/obstruction, including contemporaneous emails and actions showing a buyback arrangement.
- Evidence included: (a) Trinkle conference call noting Enron buyback assurances and Brown’s negative stance; (b) internal Merrill Lynch and Enron communications indicating a six-month exit and 15% return; (c) LJM2 involvement and six-month exit with a buyback; (d) Brown’s emails referencing a “promise” to buy back; (e) subsequent six-month buyback of Merrill Lynch’s stake; (f) pre-trial engagement letter lacking a written buyback provision; (g) testimony and documents suggesting Fastow/Enron guaranteed a buyback via third party.
- Brown I established issues about whether an unenforceable oral promise could sustain guilt; panel division in Brown I framed the issue as whether there was a legally enforceable promise or merely “strong comfort.”
- The court affirms, holding no Brady violation or materiality, and thus no due-process error based on withheld evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression of Fastow notes | Brown argues notes contained favorable material not disclosed | Government claims disclosure letters summarized exculpatory content; undisclosed portions were not material | No material Brady violation; withheld portions not capable of altering outcome |
| Brady suppression of McMahon notes | McMahon notes contained exculpatory material not disclosed | Suppressed content insufficient to affect outcome given cumulative evidence | Not cumulatively material; no due-process violation |
| Brady suppression of Zrike testimony | Zrike grand jury/SEC testimony contains favorable material | Disclosures would not yield a different result | Not cumulatively material; no Brady violation |
| Materiality standard application | Suppressed evidence undermines confidence in verdict | Evidence viewed cumulatively; other evidence supported guilt | Suppression, even cumulatively, did not create a reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Effect of prior Brown I framing on current claim | Brown I shows potential weakness in oral promise theory | Brown I resolved enforceability issue; Brady claim distinct | Brown I does not compel relitigating the Brady issue; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States (Brown I), 459 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2006) (retrial context and enforceability of oral promise issue in Enron case (perjury/obstruction))
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality; suppression must undermine confidence in outcome)
- Bagley v. represents United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for Brady evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for prejudice in constitutional claims; Brady is applied via Bagley framework)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (reaffirmed reasonable-probability standard in appellate review)
- Skilling v. United States, 554 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2009) (applies Brady framework; mixed discovery context; reliance on cumulative materiality)
- Felder v. Johnson, 180 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 1999) (Brady: inadmissible evidence may be material if it affects outcome)
- Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (impeachment/corroboration considerations in materiality analysis)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (clear-error review standard for factual findings on suppression)