United States v. Slayton
3:16-cr-00040
| S.D. Miss. | Aug 19, 2019Background
- Benamon and Mobley were convicted after an eight-day jury trial for robbing a USPS highway contract route driver; co-defendant Slayton pled guilty and testified for the Government.
- A Porterville resident, Blaylock, had home-surveillance footage showing a maroon Camry at 2:39 p.m. and again at 5:43 p.m.; defense argued additional footage around 4:30 p.m. would have contradicted Slayton’s timeline.
- Government produced two short clips from Blaylock’s system; Blaylock’s system routinely recorded over older footage and there is no evidence the Government retained or received three days of video.
- Defendants moved for a new trial under Rule 33, alleging (1) a Brady violation for failure to produce or preserve exculpatory surveillance footage and (2) prosecutor misconduct in closing argument.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing, found the missing footage at best ‘‘potentially useful’’ (not obviously exculpatory), found no proof of government bad faith in loss/preservation, and concluded any prosecutorial remarks did not undermine confidence in the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady: nondisclosure/preservation of Blaylock surveillance | Government had or controlled additional footage that would have impeached Slayton; suppression violated due process | Missing footage would show no traffic at ~4:30 p.m., contradicting Slayton; failure to preserve was unconstitutional | No Brady violation: footage was at most "potentially useful," not clearly exculpatory; defendants failed to show government bad faith, and suppression (if any) was not material enough to undermine verdict |
| Trombetta/Youngblood standard for lost evidence | Government should have preserved and disclosed the full recordings | Lost footage resulted from owner’s retention settings, not government destruction; no reason to treat footage as clearly exculpatory at time of loss | Evidence was not clearly exculpatory when lost; Youngblood requires bad faith for potentially useful evidence—none shown here |
| Impeachment value of officers’ belief about video contents | Government knew officers thought the produced clips were all that existed and should have disclosed that fact after Slayton’s testimony | Even if officers had that belief, the impeachment value was weak given Slayton’s uncertain testimony and substantial other impeachment evidence used by defense | Not material: additional impeachment would not undermine confidence in verdict given corroborating evidence and extensive cross-examination |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (three points: Blaylock clips, Deborah Simon, burden-shifting) | Prosecutor misstated facts and vouched, improperly attacked witness credibility and implicated defendants to produce proof | Remarks were responsive rebuttal, jury instructed that arguments are not evidence, and court gave immediate curative instruction on burden | No reversible misconduct: comments viewed in context, prejudice was not sufficiently grave, curative instructions given, and evidence of guilt was strong |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishing Government duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (no constitutional duty to preserve potentially useful evidence absent apparent exculpatory value)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (no due-process violation for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence absent bad faith)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady includes impeachment evidence)
- Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (materiality standard: evidence that undermines confidence in verdict)
- United States v. Moore, 452 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. application of Youngblood to recycled recordings)
- United States v. Bennett, 874 F.3d 236 (context for evaluating prosecutor remarks)
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (standards for prosecutorial misconduct review)