United States v. Kohring
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4763
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kohring was convicted in federal court of three public corruption charges and acquitted on a fourth.
- During appeal, this court remanded to test Brady/Giglio disclosure and potential remedies; district court found suppression but ruled lack of materiality.
- Newly disclosed materials included FBI 302s, notes, emails, memos, and police reports obtained on remand.
- Evidence at trial centered on surreptitious recordings and testimony from VECO executives who cooperated after plea deals.
- District court held some disclosed material likely admissible or impeaching; concluded not material under Brady/Giglio, though suppressed.
- The panel ultimately found the suppression collectively material and prejudicial, vacated Kohring’s convictions, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady/Giglio violations occurred | Kohring contends material evidence was suppressed. | Kohring disputes materiality of the suppressed material. | Yes; suppression was material collectively. |
| Whether suppression prejudiced the defendant | Suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the verdict. | No substantial prejudice if undisclosed material was cumulative. | Prejudice established; conviction vacated. |
| What is the appropriate remedy for Brady/Giglio violation | Remedy may include dismissal; at least new trial. | Dismissal with prejudice may be warranted given flagrant misconduct. | Remand for a new trial; not dismissal with prejudice. |
| Was the materiality assessment correct under Brady/Giglio | Disclosed items were admissible or impeaching; not merely cumulative. | Some items were opinion work product or cumulated. | Material; cumulative items still rise to materiality. |
| Did cross-examination and Sixth Amendment rights affect the outcome | Impeachment evidence could have altered credibility of key witnesses. | Cross-examination scope might be limited by rules of evidence. | Yes; the information could have affected credibility and the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 547 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for evaluating prejudice under Brady/Giglio)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (collective evaluation of suppressed evidence and prejudice)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (prejudice assessment when evidence could have changed outcomes)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (misleading witnesses and prosecutorial obligations to correct falsehoods)
- Kennedy v. United States, 890 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1989) (admissibility/impeachment considerations for undisclosed information)
- United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (impeachment and admissibility considerations in Brady/Giglio context)