United States v. Rafael Ubieta
16-14811
| 11th Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Barroso and Ubieta were convicted by jury of wire fraud and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349) after a scheme using straw purchasers to obtain mortgage financing; sentences were 210 and 240 months.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed the convictions. Defendants then moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1), alleging newly discovered evidence and Brady/Giglio violations.
- Two pieces of post-trial evidence: (1) a HELOC recorded in Julio Diaz’s name (Jan. 2008) available on the public Miami‑Dade Clerk of Courts website; (2) alleged pre-trial statements and attendance details about the 7th Street closing involving witnesses William Hartnett and Jose Martinez (e.g., whether $30,000 was a loan or commission, and who attended the closing).
- At trial Diaz had testified he was an unwitting victim of identity theft as to the 7th Street property; the indictment had alleged he was a straw purchaser. Hartnett testified about Ubieta’s role at the closing and the $30,000 payment.
- District court denied the new‑trial motion and an evidentiary hearing; Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the challenged materials not newly discovered, discoverable with due diligence, largely impeaching (not material), and insufficient to show Brady/Giglio suppression or prosecutorial knowledge of perjury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the post‑trial HELOC and related records "newly discovered" evidence warranting a new trial? | The HELOC and closing records were unknown until post‑trial searches and would have undermined Diaz’s innocence claim. | Records were publicly available and could have been found with due diligence; defendants had pretrial notice of Diaz’s claim of identity theft. | Not newly discovered; public records available before/during trial; denial affirmed. |
| Do the materials establish Brady suppression by the government? | Government knew of the HELOC and withheld it, depriving defendants of favorable/exculpatory evidence. | No evidence the government possessed or suppressed the HELOC; it was publicly accessible and the government provided Diaz interview reports. | Brady claim fails: no proof government had or suppressed the evidence and it was discoverable. |
| Do the materials establish Giglio (use of perjured testimony) violations? | Witness testimony (Diaz, Hartnett) was false and the prosecution knew or should have known, requiring a new trial. | Defendants only produced impeachment material, not clear proof of perjury; no showing prosecution knowingly used false testimony. | Giglio claim fails: no clear evidence of perjury or prosecutorial knowledge; impeachment alone insufficient. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required? | Defendants requested a hearing to develop the alleged suppression/perjury facts. | The record contained the necessary evidence; new facts were not shown to justify a hearing. | Denial of evidentiary hearing not an abuse of discretion; record resolved the claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor must correct known perjured testimony; undisclosed impeachment material can be reversible)
- United States v. Barsoum, 763 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2014) (elements for new‑trial motion based on newly discovered evidence)
- United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2017) (Brady review standard and discovery obligations)
- United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2002) (Brady/Giglio elements and review standards)
- Scutieri v. Paige, 808 F.2d 785 (11th Cir. 1987) (public‑record evidence available at trial cannot be "newly discovered")
- Green, Moore & Co. v. United States, 19 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1927) (public records discoverability bar to "newly discovered" claim)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence under Brady)
- United States v. Scrushy, 721 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2013) (no evidentiary hearing required when the record disposes of the claims)