United States v. Eve Mazzarella
784 F.3d 532
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Eve Mazzarella, a real-estate agent and principal of DREI, was convicted on 12 counts (conspiracy, bank fraud, mail and wire fraud) for a mortgage-fraud scheme that used straw buyers and third-party disbursements.
- Key trial testimony came from cooperating co-schemers (e.g., Skip Young, Shauna Labee) who described Mazzarella’s role in producing false loan applications and directing straw-buyer activity.
- After trial, the government disclosed (1) that employee Kim Brown had copied DREI documents and allegedly received an informal promise of non-prosecution, (2) an email showing Alicia Hanna expressed interest in FBI employment, and (3) testimony suggesting Jennifer Wolff believed she had been promised immunity for cooperating.
- Mazzarella moved for a new trial under Brady (impeachment/exculpatory evidence) and moved to suppress evidence as the fruit of an unlawful private search (Fourth Amendment); the district court denied discovery and evidentiary hearings and denied the motions.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders and remanded: it held the district court erred by failing to properly analyze the Fourth Amendment/private-actor search issue and abused its discretion by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing; remand directed the district court to allow reasonable discovery, hold a hearing, determine whether an unlawful search and/or immunity agreements existed, and then reassess prejudice and any need for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady: nondisclosure of Brown’s alleged immunity and document copying | Nondisclosed promise + copies were favorable impeachment evidence and required disclosure; nondisclosure prejudiced verdict | Any alleged promise not specific to Brown; Brown’s motive was to do right so evidence not materially impeaching; no prejudice given strong case | Court: Disclosure was favorable and district court erred in parts; on current record no prejudice found but remand required for fuller factfinding and cumulative review |
| Brady: Hanna email (FBI-job interest) | Email could impeach Hanna by showing potential bias or motive to curry favor | Email innocuous and not material; Hanna’s testimony corroborated elsewhere | Court: Email is potentially impeachment material; must be considered on remand with other disclosures |
| Brady: Wolff’s alleged immunity belief | Wolff’s belief in an immunity promise could be material impeachment and requires inquiry | Government denied any promise; district court found claim tenuous without hearing | Court: District court abused discretion by not holding a hearing/discovery; remand to resolve whether immunity existed |
| Fourth Amendment: Brown’s copying of DREI documents and disclosure to government | Brown acted at government direction/acquiescence; copying may be a government-implicated search producing tainted evidence used at trial | District court found Brown was private, motivated to do right, and no evidence government received/used documents | Court: District court erred — facts unresolved; must determine if Brown acted as government agent, whether documents were provided/used, and whether suppression is required; remand for discovery and hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of Brady denial)
- United States v. Reed, 15 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994) (private-party search can implicate Fourth Amendment if government acquiesced)
- United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of post-trial Brady claim)
- United States v. Kohring, 637 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasonable-probability standard for Brady prejudice)
- United States v. Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2013) (Brady prejudice standard; review of evidentiary hearing denial)
- Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997) (use of immunity-granted witnesses triggers heightened disclosure concerns)
- United States v. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2007) (search reasonable when employer consents to search of employee’s workplace computer)
- United States v. Kim, 105 F.3d 1579 (9th Cir. 1997) (apparent or actual authority can supply consent to search)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (exclusionary rule and attenuation doctrine)