United States v. Victor Castano
906 F.3d 458
6th Cir.2018Background
- In 2004 Castano was arrested in a pickup containing 50 lbs. of marijuana and a loaded .44 Magnum; he pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute and was convicted by jury in 2006 of felon-in-possession (§ 922(g)(1)) and a § 924(c) count later vacated on appeal.
- Multiple witnesses at the 2006 trial (Lonsby, Rich, McFadden, Herron) gave testimony about truck possession and knowledge of the gun; later FBI interviews and testimony revealed that several witnesses lied and that Castano and fellow Devils Discipline Motorcycle Club members procured perjured testimony.
- Castano was convicted in 2015 of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice for the 2006 trial and other RICO-related crimes; he has not yet been sentenced for the 2015 convictions.
- Facing potential sentence enhancement based on the 2006 felon-in-possession conviction, Castano sought a writ of coram nobis to vacate that 2006 conviction; the district court denied relief and Castano appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Castano failed to meet coram nobis’s high standard: no fundamental error shown and no sound reason for failing to pursue earlier relief for some alleged Brady material.
Issues
| Issue | Castano's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castano’s 2006 conviction was infected by perjured testimony warranting coram nobis | Conviction rested on perjured witness testimony; recantation/new evidence would have changed outcome | Perjured testimony alone, absent government knowledge, is not a constitutional error for coram nobis | Denied — perjury without government knowledge does not justify coram nobis (Burks rule) |
| Whether the government knowingly sponsored or elicited perjured testimony (due process violation) | Government called Herron (and other witnesses) despite knowing they would lie; that amounts to deliberate deception | No concrete evidence government knew witnesses lied; prosecutor impeached Herron on record and did not deliberately deceive jury | Denied — insufficient evidence government knowingly used false testimony; calling a hostile witness to impeach is permissible (Mooney/Giglio standard) |
| Whether the government suppressed Brady material (Rich’s convictions, an FBI interview, pawn slips) | Nondisclosure of Rich’s convictions, an FBI interview and pawn slips was suppressed and prejudicial | Defense either received or should have known of the materials; some items were not shown to be withheld or prejudicial | Denied — (1) defense had Rich’s criminal-history printout; (2) district court did not clearly err in finding the FBI interview was available earlier; (3) pawn slips not developed below and shown non-prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (coram nobis as remedy for persons not "in custody")
- Morgan v. United States, 346 U.S. 502 (coram nobis as extraordinary writ for fundamental errors)
- Denedo v. United States, 556 U.S. 904 (coram nobis may correct legal or factual error)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (limits on remedies when petitioner is in custody for subsequent conviction)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (due process violation where prosecution knowingly presents perjured testimony)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor’s duty to correct false testimony/impeachment evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (state must correct false testimony)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady prejudice standard)
- Burks v. Egeler, 512 F.2d 221 (6th Cir.) (perjured testimony alone does not support coram nobis)