United States v. Marlow, Criminal No. 2010-0051

Alonzo Marlow was convicted after an eight‑week jury trial (2012) for two murders (Crystal Washington, Jheryl Hodge) and related drug crimes; sentenced to life without parole; convictions later affirmed on appeal.
Prosecution evidence included cooperating witness testimony, GPS tracking data, cell‑site records, and stipulated firearms comparisons (including stipulation that a .40 at Marlow’s home did not fire Washington’s casings).
Post‑trial, D.C. forensic examiners (Barrett and Morales, later at DFS/FEU) were found to have made errors in unrelated 2015–2016 cases; DFS reviewed their work and announced errors and suspension.
Marlow filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (later supplemented) arguing Brady nondisclosure and a Confrontation Clause violation based on the later‑discovered firearms examiner errors.
The government opposed; the district court denied relief, holding (a) no Brady prejudice because the post‑trial errors did not exist at trial and would not likely have changed the outcome, (b) no Confrontation violation because the examiners did not testify (parties stipulated) and no pre‑trial basis existed to impeach them with later errors, and (c) any Rule 33 new‑trial claim was time‑barred and, in any event, the new evidence was merely impeaching and would not probably produce acquittal.

Issue	Marlow's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Brady nondisclosure of firearms‑examiner errors	Prosecutors failed to disclose information undermining firearms experts, which was favorable/impeaching and would have affected trial strategy	No duty to disclose evidence that did not exist at trial; even if disclosure possible, Marlow cannot show a reasonable probability of a different verdict given strong GPS, cell‑site, and witness evidence	Denied — no Brady relief: no suppression of existing evidence and no showing of prejudice
Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Later‑discovered examiner errors would have permitted effective cross‑examination, undermining expert testimony and reliability	Examiners did not testify (parties stipulated), so defense waived cross‑examination; no contemporaneous evidence of examiner error to use at trial	Denied — no Confrontation violation because no testimony was precluded and errors arose after trial
Rule 33 new trial based on newly discovered evidence	Newly discovered forensic‑unit errors justify a new trial	Motion is untimely under Rule 33(b)(1); even if timely, the evidence is merely impeaching and would not likely produce acquittal	Denied — time‑barred; alternatively fails Johnson factors (impeaching, not likely to lead to acquittal)

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (prejudice standard for nondisclosure; reasonable probability test)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (§2255 relief standard higher than direct appeal)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (right to effective cross‑examination)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause and limits on cross‑examination)
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (recharacterizing pro se filings to match substance)
United States v. Johnson, 519 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (five‑factor Rule 33 newly discovered evidence test)
Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (Rule 33 time limits are claim‑processing rules)
United States v. Clark, 977 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (motions in sentencing court that fit §2255 are treated as §2255)