United States v. Daaiyah Pasha
418 U.S. App. D.C. 258
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2008 defense attorney Charles Daum and investigators Iman and Daaiyah Pasha allegedly staged a photo shoot to fabricate evidence for client Delante White’s drug trial; White and others later pled guilty to related offenses.
- In 2012 Daum, Iman, and Daaiyah were convicted after a bench trial on conspiracy to obstruct justice; Daum faced additional counts for witness tampering, fabricating evidence, and suborning perjury.
- On April 19, 2012 defendants offered to waive jury trial; the court accepted written waivers after counsel represented waivers were knowing and voluntary.
- The Government interviewed eyewitness Everett Montgomery in July 2011 (he reported seeing a man and a woman arrive), but did not disclose that interview to defense counsel until April 5, 2012—over eight months later (Brady material).
- The district court found a Brady violation but concluded there was no prejudice sufficient to warrant reversal; defendants appealed challenging (1) validity of jury-waiver, (2) Daum’s scienter elements, and (3) prejudice from the Brady violation and appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of written jury-waivers without oral colloquy | Waivers complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 23(a); colloquy not required where counsel and defendants (and written waivers) provide sufficient basis. | Waivers were invalid because no on-the-record colloquy, especially problematic in multi-defendant context; later evidence undermines voluntariness. | Affirmed: court had "sufficient basis" to accept waivers; no convincing evidence waiver was unknowing or involuntary. |
| Multi-defendant context requires per se oral colloquy | No per se rule; stronger admonition to conduct colloquy but not mandatory absent evidence waiver was defective. | Multi-defendant setting increases risk a defendant was outvoted and thus necessitates oral colloquy. | Affirmed: no per se rule; defendants failed to show prejudice or lack of understanding. |
| Daum’s mens rea elements for obstruction and subornation (plain error) | Court’s findings (scheme to fabricate evidence; instructing perjury) satisfy statutory intent; no plain error. | District Court’s comment on motive shows failure to find corrupt motive or willfulness, requiring reversal. | Affirmed: motive comment did not negate requisite corrupt intent or willfulness; no plain error and duress not raised at trial. |
| Brady violation: materiality, prejudice, and remedy for delayed disclosure of Montgomery interview | Government admits Brady violation but argues no prejudice; urges no reversal or only limited sanction. | Defendants argue prejudice to preparation and possible loss of favorable testimony; seek remedies up to dismissal. | Mixed: Brady violation found; for Iman no reasonable probability of different outcome; for Daaiyah prejudice undermined confidence in verdict—vacated conviction and remanded for new trial with additional curative remedies available; dismissal only as last resort. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady components: favorable, suppressed, prejudicial)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality inquiry considers effect on preparation/presentation)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (reasonable probability standard undermining confidence in verdict)
- United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (sufficient-basis test for accepting jury-waiver)
- United States v. Oruche, 484 F.3d 590 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (new trial is the prescribed remedy for Brady violations)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (remedies for destroyed or unavailable evidence)
- United States v. Bohl, 25 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 1994) (dismissal appropriate where government’s disposal of central evidence permanently deprives defendant of due process)