829 F.3d 84
1st Cir.2016Background
- Calderón, a sales manager at GSM City and GSM City Supercenter, testified before a Puerto Rico federal grand jury in 2012 and denied ever personally receiving or counting cash for purchases.
- DEA undercover officers Díaz and Guevara testified at trial about multiple cash deliveries to Calderón at GSM City; the government introduced photos and other evidence of those cash transactions.
- GSM employee and confidential informant Angel Delguercio testified (with some equivocation) that employees at the stores routinely handled large cash payments and that Calderón was seen counting cash; Calderercón was the only witness linking Calderón to cash handling at Supercenter.
- Calderón was indicted and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 for making a false statement to the grand jury that he never received cash; defense argued ambiguity in grand jury questions (GSM City v. Supercenter) could make Calderón’s answer truthful.
- After trial, Calderón sought a new trial alleging Brady/Giglio violations: (1) the government failed to disclose that Delguercio had been charged with theft (impeachment evidence), and (2) related Florida-prosecution developments (an undercover officer Muñoz’s unrelated conviction and certain grand-jury factual inaccuracies) tainted the Puerto Rico proceedings.
- The district court held the government should have disclosed Delguercio’s arrest but found no reasonable probability of a different outcome; it rejected claims based on the Florida proceedings and denied grand jury transcript production. This appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Calderón) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of Delguercio’s arrest violated Giglio and warrants a new trial | Withheld arrest was material impeachment evidence that would have undermined Delguercio’s credibility and supported Calderón’s ambiguity defense | Arrest was cumulative of impeachment already pursued at trial and would not likely change outcome | No abuse of discretion: disclosure error acknowledged but no reasonable probability of a different verdict |
| Whether information from a related Florida prosecution (Muñoz’s plea/conviction and misattributed deliveries) required disclosure or tainted the Puerto Rico indictment | Florida developments showed government used tainted witnesses/factual inaccuracies before the grand jury, making the Puerto Rico indictment unreliable and Brady/Giglio material | Muñoz did not testify in Puerto Rico; plea occurred after trial; information was not known to prosecutors and was immaterial to guilt | Rejected: no Brady/Giglio violation and no prejudice; indictment not tainted |
| Whether errors in the Florida grand jury proceedings denied due process or required overturning the Puerto Rico indictment | Inaccurate Florida grand-jury testimony and tainted evidence infected the Puerto Rico grand jury and deprived Calderón of fundamental fairness | Petit jury conviction renders any grand-jury error harmless absent extremely grave prosecutorial misconduct | Rejected: conviction cures grand-jury defects; no fundamental unfairness shown |
| Whether the court erred in denying production of the Puerto Rico grand jury transcript | Calderón asserted particularized need to investigate grand-jury taint and Brady claims | Government supplied an unsealed summary and there was no compelling necessity to breach grand-jury secrecy | Denial affirmed: secrecy preserved; defendant failed to show particularized need |
Key Cases Cited
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (Brady rule applied to witness-impeachment information)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard: reasonable probability undermining confidence in outcome)
- United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986) (conviction renders most grand-jury errors harmless)
- United States v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983) (strong federal policy favoring secrecy of grand-jury proceedings)
- United States v. Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence and Brady-materiality guidance)
- United States v. Paladin, 748 F.3d 438 (1st Cir. 2014) (factors for assessing impeachment-material significance and cumulativeness)