United States v. Michael J. Muzio
663 F. App'x 845
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Muzio was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and making false statements related to manipulating the market for IBVG stock; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Government’s primary witness was Brian Taglieri, a HomePals participant who cooperated, recorded conversations, and testified about Muzio’s role in creating press releases, trades, and operations that inflated IBVG stock.
- After trial Muzio moved for a new trial under Rule 33, relying on (1) FBI 302 reports of interviews with Taglieri (not attached to the motion) and (2) a letter from co-defendant Ronnie Bass claiming Muzio was merely a consultant and did not prepare a key PowerPoint.
- Muzio argued the 302s were Brady/Giglio material that impeached Taglieri, showed prosecutorial suppression, and established that the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony; he also sought an evidentiary hearing.
- The magistrate judge and district court found the Bass letter cumulative and not newly discovered, and found the 302s were largely impeachment/cumulative and that the government had disclosed equivalent information pretrial; no Brady/Giglio violation shown and no reasonable probability of a different result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered Bass letter warrants new trial | Bass letter shows Muzio was only a consultant, undermining guilt | Letter is cumulative; facts were known pretrial | Denied — cumulative, not newly discovered |
| Whether Taglieri 302s are newly discovered Brady material | 302s impeach Taglieri, show greater misconduct, and were suppressed | Information in 302s was consistent with trial testimony and disclosed in other forms pretrial | Denied — impeachment/cumulative and available pretrial; no Brady violation |
| Whether prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony (Giglio) | Prosecutor allowed Taglieri to testify falsely; 302s establish knowledge | No proof prosecutor knew of perjury or that any false statements were material | Denied — no evidence of knowing use of perjury or materiality |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing | Hearing required to evaluate 302s and credibility issues | Record contained all evidence necessary; issues straightforward | Denied — no hearing needed; existing record sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor must disclose impeachment/perjury information and not knowingly use false testimony)
- United States v. Muzio, 757 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir.) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions)
- United States v. Scrushy, 721 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir.) (Rule 33 new-trial standard; evidentiary-hearing guidance)
- United States v. Isaacson, 752 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 33 denials)
- United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir.) (elements for newly discovered-evidence Rule 33 motion)
- United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir.) (Brady elements)
- United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir.) (Giglio materiality standard)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (standard for undisclosed evidence of perjury)
- United States v. DiBernardo, 880 F.2d 1216 (11th Cir.) (cumulative evidence not newly discovered)
- United States v. Davis, 787 F.2d 1501 (11th Cir.) (Brady inapplicable when evidence available from other sources)
- Ross v. State of Texas, 474 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir.) (newly discovered evidence must do more than speculative harm)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. en banc) (11th Cir. adopts Fifth Circuit precedent pre-1981)