United States v. Hector Morales
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5500
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Morales and his son operated Intelligent Payment Services, a scheme that defrauded small businesses via fake bad-check collection with unauthorized withdrawals totaling about $645,000.
- Agents executed a search on IPS’s Libertyville, Illinois office on July 27, 2004, uncovering laptops, documents, and victim data linking Morales to the fraud.
- Evidence showed Morales deposited IPS funds into his personal accounts and used IPS funds for personal expenses; numerous witnesses and forensic evidence tied him to the scheme.
- Morales was indicted on nine counts of mail fraud and convicted after trial, with extensive government evidence including handwriting, emails, bank records, and witness testimony.
- Three weeks post-trial, two emails from Agent Kane had not been disclosed; one described a laptop screen during the raid, the other threatened arrest and tazing in colorful language.
- Morales moved for a new trial alleging Brady violations; the district court denied relief and Morales appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Brady require admissible evidence to be material? | Morales argues inadmissible evidence can be material. | Morales contends only admissible evidence can be material. | Materiality can apply to inadmissible evidence in some circuits; court ultimately treats admissibility as non-dispositive for this case. |
| Was the April 15 Brady email about Paulina’s computer activity material? | Morales claims it contradicts trial theme and impeachment value. | Morales argues it could undermine credibility and show involvement, affecting outcome. | Not material; would not have changed verdict given strength of other evidence. |
| Was the June 9 Brady email about Kane’s bias material? | Morales contends it could impeach Kane and affect outcome. | Email shows bravado with little real-world consequence and minimal impeachment value. | Not material; would not have changed the verdict. |
| Does belated disclosure of the two emails cumulatively affect materiality? | Emails could cumulatively undermine confidence in the verdict. | Other corroborating evidence supported Kane’s testimony; emails add nothing substantial. | No cumulative error; district court did not err in denying a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitely, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality requires reasonable probability of different result)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (material evidence may be impeachment or exculpatory)
- Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 (1995) (admissibility threshold for materiality ambiguity)
- Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (discretionary materiality standard for undisclosed evidence)
- Salem v. United States, 578 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2009) (impeachment evidence and materiality considerations)
- Silva v. United States, 71 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 1995) (materiality review based on overall weight and credibility)