United States v. Kauapirura
24-567 mtn
2d Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Ehrenfriede Kauapirura was convicted in the Eastern District of New York on charges including filing and assisting in filing false tax returns, interfering with IRS administration, and failing to file tax returns.
- After initially being represented, Kauapirura proceeded pro se (representing herself) at trial.
- The government had disclosed a report (the "Coleman Report") about an IRS officer who was a hearsay declarant at trial; the timing and adequacy of this disclosure was at issue.
- Kauapirura filed post-trial motions which the district court construed as seeking judgment of acquittal; the Court of Appeals evaluated her claims under the more lenient standard for motions for a new trial.
- The district judge had previously declined to prosecute the IRS officer involved in the report during her tenure as a federal prosecutor; Kauapirura argued this required recusal.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting all of Kauapirura's arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to Redisclose Coleman Report under Brady | Gov’t should have given Coleman Report again after switch to pro se | Disclosure to former counsel sufficed; Kauapirura received all discovery | No violation; gov't met disclosure obligations |
| Use of Allegedly False Testimony (Napue violation) | Gov’t failed to correct false/incomplete IRS agent testimony about Coleman | No evidence testimony was actually false; Kauapirura could cross-examine | No Napue violation; no actual false testimony shown |
| Recusal of District Judge due to prior connection | Judge's prior decline to prosecute IRS agent created appearance of bias | Connection was indirect; no reasonable question of impartiality | No abuse of discretion; recusal not required |
| Procedural/Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence | Bias affected sentencing, making it unreasonable | No evidence of bias in sentencing | Sentence affirmed; no procedural/substantive error |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (conviction obtained with use of known perjured testimony must be set aside)
- United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1992) (recusal generally not required for indirect or speculative interests)