United States v. Jack Parker
790 F.3d 550
4th Cir.2015Background
- Parker and Taylor were convicted of illegal gambling under 18 U.S.C. § 1955 after a three-day jury trial.
- The government contended the five-participant requirement was met via a single gambling business linking two bookmakers (including Brett) and a fifth participant.
- Tammy Parker was proposed as the fifth participant, based on Tammy’s finances and management of gambling proceeds, supported by Staples’s testimony and Tammy’s notes.
- The government introduced additional theories (layoff bookies and a line provider) to satisfy the five-participant requirement.
- Before and during trial, Staples disclosed an SEC fraud investigation; the civil division later filed a separate SEC complaint against Staples.
- Defense moved for a new trial after discovering the SEC investigation; the district court denied, concluding the information wasn’t material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government violate Brady by withholding the SEC impeachment information? | Parker: yes, impeachment material. | Government: no Brady violation; information not material. | Yes; Brady violation found, convictions vacated and remanded. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to support the five-participant theory independent of the Brady issue? | Tammy could be the sole fifth participant; evidence insufficient for layoff/line theories. | Evidence supported a single gambling business with five participants. | Yes for one theory (the Brett/Jack/Douglas with Bryan group); however, convictions vacated due to Brady ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (federal due-process duty to disclose favorable impeachment evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (impeachment evidence encompasses witnesses’ credibility)
- Nicolaou v. United States, 180 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 1999) (unanimity on five-participant element not required; multiple theories can prove five participants)
- Bartko v. United States, 728 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2013) ( Brady violations assessed for materiality; distinguish egregious patterns from material impact)
- Wilson v. United States, 624 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2010) (Brady materiality and reasonable probability standard)
- Jeffers v. United States, 570 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 2009) (prosecution’s duty to learn favorable information known to others on government side)
- King v. United States, 628 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2011) (clear-error review of factual findings in Brady context)
- Ambers v. United States, 85 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1996) (cross-examination to expose witness bias and motivation)