United States v. Kenneth Olsen
737 F.3d 625
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Olsen convicted of developing a biological weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 175; evidence included spiked allergy pills suggesting intent to weaponize ricin.
- WSP forensic analyst Melnikoff analyzed pills; FBI later tested; concerns arose about Melnikoff's competence and handling of evidence.
- District court was misinformed by the AUSA about the Melnikoff investigation scope and findings prior to Olsen’s trial.
- A WSP investigative report documenting Melnikoff’s misconduct existed before Olsen’s trial but was not disclosed to defense or district court.
- Jury heard Melnikoff’s testimony and the spiked pills without knowledge of serious doubts about the reliability of his work.
- Dissent argues the Panel erred by deeming the nondisclosure immaterial and criticizes prosecutorial ethics and systemic Brady violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the WSP report material Brady evidence? | Olsen: yes; it supports credibility concerns about Melnikoff and undermines key evidence. | State panel: immaterial given overwhelming other evidence. | Yes, material; constitutes Brady violation. |
| Did the nondisclosure reflect willful or reckless prosecutorial conduct warrant sanctions? | Olsen: likely willful; failure to disclose significant exculpatory evidence. | Panel: no willfulness established; no sanctions discussed. | Likely willful/reckless; sanctions possible. |
| Can knowledge of Melnikoff's misconduct be imputed to the federal prosecutor? | Olsen: prosecutor should be charged with knowledge of state investigation findings. | Panel did not address imputation issue; knowledge not disclosed. | Imputation appropriate; disclosure duty violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutorial duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality requiring reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (U.S. 2012) (materiality standard for undisclosed Brady evidence)
- Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2005) (evidence of misconduct and its impact on conviction)
- United States v. Kohring, 637 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (imputation of prosecutorial knowledge and Brady considerations)