478 F. App'x 605
11th Cir.2012Background
- Appellants Bradley, Jr., Bradley, III, Tellechea, and Bio-Med were charged in a 286-count indictment with RICO, wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and failure to disclose foreign financial interests related to blood derivatives and non-controlled meds.
- Before trial, Bradley, Jr. was evaluated for competency; based on stipulation and medical reports, the court found him competent without an evidentiary hearing.
- After a six-week trial, most counts resulted in conviction, with some acquittals; on direct appeal, convictions and several rulings were affirmed, while Bradley, Jr. and Tellechea’s sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing.
- Approximately one year later, a Hernandez indictment charged 21 defendants, including Pinkoff, for online diet pills and weight-loss drugs; the Hernandez trial ended in a mistrial and the district court dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Bradley, III, Bradley, Jr., Bio-Med, and Tellechea moved for a new trial alleging Brady violations based on undisclosed investigation of Pinkoff; the district court denied, finding no reasonable probability of a different outcome.
- Bradley, Jr. separately sought a new trial on newly discovered competency-related evidence; the district court ruled this evidence irrelevant and not undermining the Butner report’s competency determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady claim viability for new trial | Bradley contends Pinkoff was under investigation, making impeachment evidence material. | Government argues any impeachment evidence was not favorable or would not change the outcome. | District court did not abuse its discretion; no reasonable probability of different result. |
| New-trial burden for competency evidence | New discovery about a neurologist’s notes could undermine competency finding. | Butner-based competency remained supported; notes not new or undermining. | District court did not abuse its discretion; no basis for new trial based on competency evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2002) ( Brady materiality framework for new-trial claims)
- United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1995) ( Brady standard requires material suppression to affect outcome)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for suppressed impeachment information)
- United States v. Newton, 44 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1994) ( impeachment evidence defined as favorable to the defense)
- United States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir. 1993) (clear error standard for competency determinations)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (constitutional materiality of undisclosed evidence)
- United States v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir. 1998) (review standard for denial of motions without evidentiary hearing)