United States v. Meregildo
920 F. Supp. 2d 434
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Parsons agreed to cooperate with the Government against the Courtlandt Avenue Crew on August 18, 2011; the crew was indicted on September 21, 2011 on narcotics, racketeering, and murder charges.
- Parsons, a self-described gang member and former drug dealer, created a Facebook account under the alias Devin Morris and posted from prison using a cell phone.
- A private party identified posts, prompting a July 19, 2012 inquiry by Toshnelle Foster about Parsons’s use of the account and authorship of posts.
- During an August 10, 2012 proffer, Parsons admitted the account and posts were his and explained how the account was created and used; he said no additional posts about the case existed.
- Colon moved to compel production of Parsons’s Facebook contents; Parsons later claimed he had deleted the account, and the Government could not access it because the email was not accessible.
- The Government attempted access via Facebook but could not obtain the content; Colon later disclosed he possessed a complete log of the account.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parsons is part of the prosecution team for Brady purposes | Colon argues Parsons is a prosecution team member due to testimony and cooperation. | The Government contends Parsons was not an agent or joint actor of the prosecution. | Parsons is not a prosecution team member; Brady obligation not imputed to Government. |
| Whether the Government had Brady obligations to produce Parsons’s Facebook posts in its possession | Colon asserts the Government possessed or should have possessed the posts and failed to disclose them. | The Government argues it did not possess the posts and had no obligation to obtain third-party data. | Brady obligation not violated; information not in Government possession was not required to be produced. |
| Whether cooperating witnesses may be treated as part of the prosecution team for imputation | Colon would treat a cooperating witness as within the prosecution team for purposes of knowledge imputation. | Government and courts generally treat cooperating witnesses as outside the prosecution team. | Cooperating witnesses are not generally part of the prosecution team; imputation is limited. |
| Whether constructive knowledge extends to information not in the prosecutor’s possession | Colon suggests the prosecutor should have access to all information the Government could obtain. | The Government is not required to discover information it did not possess or control. | Constructive knowledge limited; no obligation to obtain third-party data not in possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of favorable material evidence)
- United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) (prosecutor presumed to know information gathered by others acting on the government's behalf)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (definition of material Brady evidence; due process safeguard)
- United States v. Gil, 297 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2002) (imputation of knowledge limited to arm-of-the-prosecutor or prosecution team)
- Bin Laden v. United States, 397 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (imputation limits for government agents and prosecution team)
- United States v. Stewart, 323 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (whether an expert witness can be imputed as part of the prosecution team)