United States v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20023

June 2008: Government charged Pamela Holder and Fred Holder (died August 2008) with two bank fraud and two wire fraud counts related to a $1.4 million home purchase tied to Leeper's credit; Leeper was recruited to appear as purchaser and president of Team Fat Man, Inc.
May 2005 mortgage closing involved Leeper signing documents; subsequent default and foreclosure caused net loss to First Tennessee Bank of about $376,070.
Prosecution planned to use Leeper's testimony with a claimed nonprosecution agreement; district court later found no actual agreement existed.
Trial included defense impeachment of Leeper based on a promised nonprosecution agreement; government witnesses and documentary evidence also presented.
District court noted a dispute over whether a nonprosecution agreement was communicated; jury returned guilty verdicts on all four counts.
Holder moved for judgment of acquittal or new trial in May 2009; the district court denied the motion at sentencing in November 2009; Holder appeals seeking relief on Brady and Strickland grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady violation—failure to disclose a nonprosecution agreement	Holder asserts suppression of impeachment evidence prejudiced the defense	Government contends no material Brady violation occurred	No material Brady violation; district court did not abuse discretion
Ineffective assistance of counsel—pretrial expectations and cross-examination	Holder contends counsel's handling surrounding Leeper's supposed nonprosecution agreement prejudiced the defense	Government argues no prejudice from counsel's actions given other evidence	Denied; claims insufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality of suppressed evidence depends on reasonable probability of different outcome)
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (test for prejudice under Brady; materiality standards)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment value of witness's benefit or deal with government)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Anderson v. Butler, 858 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1988) (prejudice from defense promises not to call powerful witnesses)
Harris v. Reed, 894 F.2d 871 (7th Cir. 1990) (prejudice from failing to call anticipated testimony from promised witnesses)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence independent of requests)
Agurs v. Alabama, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (duty to disclose favorable evidence even absent request)
Jones v. United States, 399 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for Brady claims in this circuit)
Mullins v. United States, 22 F.3d 1365 (6th Cir. 1994) (relevance of impeachment evidence to credibility)
Beeler v. First Tennessee Bank, Not applicable (N/A) (used in opinion as fact witness; not a separate controlling authority)