United States v. Richard Renzi, 690 F. App'x 487

Background

Richard Renzi and James Sandlin were convicted by a jury of multiple public-corruption and related offenses; this Court previously affirmed those convictions.
Renzi moved for a new trial alleging Brady/Giglio/Napue violations: that the Government suppressed evidence favorable to him and knowingly elicited false or misleading testimony from key witness Philip Aries.
Suppressed/non-disclosed materials included: an FBI agent’s notes showing Renzi’s district director Joanne Keene (not Renzi) first mentioned the Sandlin property; an agent’s comment suggesting calling Renzi might be the sort of act for which Aries could be rewarded; and standard admonishment forms indicating possible taxable payments.
At trial Aries admitted on cross that he initially misidentified who first mentioned the property; the record established before deliberations that Keene (not Renzi) first raised the property.
Aries consistently testified that Renzi offered him a “free pass” (the core corruption allegation); Aries also admitted he had a grudge against Renzi and testified he had not actually received any government payment.
The district court found suppression occurred for some materials but denied a new trial, concluding the undisclosed evidence did not undermine confidence in the verdict; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nondisclosure of FBI notes and admonishment forms violated Brady and warrants a new trial	Renzi: undisclosed notes and agent comments showed Aries had a financial motive and that Keene (not Renzi) first mentioned the property; this would undermine the verdict	Government: the undisclosed items were not material to the core issues; jury already knew Keene first mentioned the property and Aries denied being motivated by payment	Court: assumed suppression occurred but held the evidence was not material enough to undermine confidence in the verdict (no Brady relief)
Whether prosecutor knowingly elicited false or misleading testimony about Aries’ financial motivation (Napue)	Renzi: prosecutor misled jury by saying Aries had not received “one thin dime” and elicited testimony minimizing any financial incentive	Government: the statement was factually true (no payment received); any implication that Aries might be paid was not knowingly created or material	Court: Napue claim fails because statement was true and no evidence prosecutor knowingly created a false impression or that any impression was material
Whether prior Ninth Circuit holdings or precedent foreclose Renzi’s renewed Napue/Giglio claims	Renzi: challenges prior rulings asserting new evidence changes materiality assessment	Government: no new facts or law undermining prior conclusions	Court: reaffirmed prior ruling; Renzi offered no new facts/legal arguments sufficient to change outcome
Standard for relief where suppressed evidence is cumulative or peripheral	Renzi: undisclosed materials cumulatively show witness bias and undermine credibility	Government: evidence was cumulative; central testimony (offer of a “free pass”) remained consistent and corroborated	Court: cumulative/peripheral nature meant new evidence did not meet Wearry’s standard to undermine confidence; no new trial

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor's duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor must correct witness testimony if it relates to witness credibility)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (conviction may be set aside where prosecutor allows false testimony to go uncorrected if material)
Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (2016) (new evidence must undermine confidence in the verdict to warrant relief)
United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2014) (earlier appeal affirming convictions and addressing related Napue issues)
United States v. Mazzarella, 784 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Brady-based new-trial motions)
United States v. Rodriguez, 766 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing Napue claims)
Soto v. Ryan, 760 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (Napue requires false testimony known by prosecutor and materiality)
Sivak v. Hardison, 658 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (materiality analysis under Napue)
Towery v. Schriro, 641 F.3d 300 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses misleading but literally true statements in Napue context)
Houston v. Schriro, 648 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2011) (materiality and credibility attack relevance to Napue analysis)