United States v. Price, 4:16-cr-00006

Background:

On Nov. 20, 2015, ATF Task Force Officer Scott Wyatt and Deputy Todd Carroll surveilled a Danville residence looking for fugitive Bradley Price; Wyatt followed a departing vehicle and, after stopping it, Carroll removed the driver (defendant Edward Price) and found crack cocaine during a consensual search.
Defendant Price was arrested, entered a conditional guilty plea (reserving appeal of a suppression denial), and was sentenced to 60 months; the Fourth Circuit affirmed the suppression ruling.
In 2017 the U.S. Attorney identified potentially impeaching material concerning ATF officer Craig Frye; the district court ordered disclosure of that material in many cases where Frye had any role; Frye had briefly appeared at Price’s arraignment but never testified or otherwise participated in the prosecution.
Price filed a §2255 habeas petition claiming the government’s failure to disclose Frye impeachment material violated Brady/Giglio and tainted his prosecution and plea; the court permitted limited discovery but Price produced no evidence linking Frye to the investigation, stop, arrest, or prosecution.
The district court held that Price failed to show Brady/Giglio suppression or materiality, and failed to show ‘‘egregiously impermissible conduct’’ sufficient to withdraw his guilty plea; the §2255 petition was dismissed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nondisclosure of Frye impeachment material violated due process (Brady/Giglio)	Frye’s presence at arraignment and later revelations of misconduct required disclosure and undermined confidence in the prosecution	Frye had no role in the stop, search, or prosecution; no impeaching material was suppressed as to witnesses who testified	Denied — no evidence Frye was involved; Brady/Giglio not shown and nondisclosure not material
Whether impeachment material had to be disclosed before Price’s guilty plea	Pre-plea disclosure of Frye impeachment was required to make plea knowing/voluntary	Supreme Court precedent does not require disclosure of impeachment material before a guilty plea	Denied — Ruiz controls; no constitutional pre-plea disclosure requirement
Whether Frye’s alleged misconduct would have changed the suppression ruling or appellate outcome	Frye’s misconduct tainted the case and would have affected suppression hearing/outcome	Frye did not participate in the stop or search; suppression denial rests on valid stop and consensual search affirmed on appeal	Denied — evidence would not have changed suppression ruling; Fourth Circuit affirmed
Whether Price may withdraw his guilty plea due to government misconduct (Fisher standard)	Alleged non-disclosure and misconduct influenced Price’s decision to plead	No egregious impermissible government conduct shown that influenced plea	Denied — Price failed to show egregious misconduct or material influence on plea

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment)
United States v. Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecution must disclose impeachment information regarding its witnesses)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality: reasonable probability that nondisclosure affected outcome)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady/Giglio three-part framework articulated)
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (no constitutional requirement to disclose impeachment information prior to guilty plea)
United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard for withdrawing a guilty plea based on government misconduct)
United States v. Sterling, 724 F.3d 482 (4th Cir. 2013) (application of Brady/Giglio and materiality in the Fourth Circuit)
United States v. Price, [citation="717 F. App'x 241"] (4th Cir. 2018) (appellate affirmance of suppression denial)