628 F. App'x 15
2d Cir.2015Background
- Ramirez was convicted by a jury in 2014 of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and marijuana and discharging a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
- After trial, the government disclosed the witness’s presentence investigation report (PSR), which it had before trial and which could assist impeachment of the witness.
- Ramirez moved for a new trial under Rule 29/33 alleging Brady/Giglio/Jencks Act violations based on nondisclosure.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding Ramirez was not prejudiced by the nondisclosure.
- The appeal reviews materiality de novo for Brady/Giglio issues and reviews the Rule 33 denial for abuse of discretion.
- The court held the PSR impeachment material would be cumulative and would not have changed the outcome given other corroborating testimony and DNA evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Giglio materiality of nondisclosed PSR | Ramirez contends nondisclosure was material and prejudicial. | Ramirez argues PSR could have undermined witness credibility and changed the verdict. | No prejudice; PSR would not have changed outcome. |
| Impact of impeachment evidence on outcome | Ramirez argues collective impeachment would yield a different result. | Ramirez emphasizes credibility of witness as pivotal. | Impeachment material was largely cumulative and not outcome-determinative. |
| Jencks Act materials and protective order timing | Ramirez asserts the protective order hindered use of Jencks material. | Ramirez claims timing and access impaired defense strategy. | No suppression or materiality; timing did not deprive effective use. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Modori, 419 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2005) (de novo materiality review with deference to district findings)
- United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) (Brady/Giglio vs Jencks distinctions; materiality framework)
- United States v. Jackson, 345 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2003) (materiality requires reasonable probability of different result)
- United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1987) (impeachment evidence impact on credibility and elements)
- United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200 (2d Cir. 1995) (impeachment evidence often material when witness links to crime or credibility is central)
- Shabazz v. Artuz, 336 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2003) (undisclosed evidence may be cumulative and immaterial if credibility already attacked)
- United States v. Orena, 145 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1998) (credibility challenges may render additional impeachment material immaterial)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (prejudice shown via reasonable probability of different result)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (materiality in suppression cases requires reasonable probability of effect)