United States of America Ex Rel. Joseph Marzeno v. Louis Gengler, Warden, Federal House of Detention

FCC’s Ordеr on Remand should (ITT Br. at be affirmed the Court.” affirms the

Accordingly, Court Order FCC, adopted

on Remand on Novem- January

ber 1977 and released on

1978.

UNITED STATES of America ex rel.

Joseph MARZENO, Appellant, GENGLER, Warden,

Louis Federal House Detention, Appellee. 77-1254,

Nos. 77-1360. of Appeals, Court

Third Circuit.

Argued Oct.

Decided Feb.

731 Lowenstein, Roger A. Federal Public De- fender, appellant. Goldstein,

Jonathan L. Asst. Atty., U. S. Ralph Jacobs, Newark, J., A. Atty., U. N. S. for appellee. SEITZ,

Before Judge, Chief and BIGGS HUNTER, Judges. and Circuit OPINION HUNTER, III, Judge: JAMES Circuit again is once appeal, this Court application confronted with the of United Agurs, 427 96 U.S. (1976), prosecutor’s 49 L.Ed.2d 342 to a fail- help- ure potentially to disclose information ful to a criminal defendant.1 The district court denied Marzeno’s motion under 28 ground 2255 on the that the undis- U.S.C. § have closed information would not affected the jury’s judgment prisoner’s in the criminal case. our review of the evi- After conjunction at trial in section 2255 the information at the adduced we hold that undis- evidentiary hearing, “material” under closed information is not Agurs, light application States v. eration of United 1. This court first considered Agurs (1976), United States v. 527 F.2d 96 S.Ct. remand, (1975), vacated and remanded reconsid- on 547 F.2d 204 2) The Agurs, thus affirm the denial of the intercession a Secret motion. in a agent, on behalf of proceeding criminal pending state Delaware; against Bogdanski in 3) Bogdanski’s prior prisoner was convicted several Certain elements of- indictment, eight record, counts of an count which were alleged stemmed from his involvement in brought out the at tri- counterfeiting matters in 1971. He was al. co-defendants in the along

tried with three Wil- Jersey Judge District of New before II Knox, judge from the visiting liam W. are to review the appeal, we asked Pennsylvania, District of and a Western claims Marzeno as to the sentences jury. appeal, ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‍On his conviction was af- upon received conviction under Count I of firmed this court in a judgment order on (conspiracy possess the indictment to and 18, 1974. v. Mar- January utter counterfeit and VI currency) Count zeno, 491 F.2d 751 Marzeno (transfer $95,000 approximately of coun- brought this section 2255 motion on Febru- 29, 1971).2 currency terfeit on June ary evidentiary hearing 1975. After an investigation role in the lead- held, Judge was Meanor denied the motion ing to Marzeno’s arrest and at trial is crit- opinion in an January dated ical to Marzeno’s allegations of a denial of alleges Marzeno three different violations Bog- his due right to a fair of his right to a fair trial on the counter- investigation danski participated in the and violations, feiting all directed at alleged prosecution of Marzeno and his co-defend- prosecutorial failing to reveal misconduct informant, ants as engaging an undercover impeached information that would have the in transactions which bills counterfeit credibility government’s informant- passed, were reporting and to Secret Ser- witness, Joseph Bogdanski. alleg- Marzeno agents investigating vice es that the failure to reveal the information ring. He related at trial that his motiva- prior to requested by trial or when defense tiоn for informing testifying against and during counsel trial violated rights enunci- friend, who had been a formerly Brady Maryland, ated in was that he a developed grudge against had (1963). 10 L.Ed.2d 215 willing cooperate Marzeno and was with three nondisclosures related to federal authorities in order to exact his 1) Bogdanski’s in an participation Irving- revenge. ton, Jersey New incident in which he Bogdanski’s credibility Since has been investigated was allegedly passing question, called into we examine first bill, a counterfeit later was relevant facts of the apart case from shоwn to have the same serial number testimony given by Bogdanski. as one of the bills which formed the basis of prosecution against Mar- On June called Mar- Bogdanski zeno; night.3 zeno to set up meeting a years However, purpose 2. He was sentenced to seven for the his home. of the call— $95,000 approximately up meeting Bog- transfer of in counter- to set a and between Marzeno currency (Count indictment), feit concerning “buyer” Bogdanski VI of the danski a had consecutively year be served to his two sen- located —lends itself to the inference conspiring possess tence for and utter coun- transaction intended was not so innocent as the (Count I). terfeit bills Marzeno was convicted example, sale of house. For transferring at this trial of three counts of other conversation was as follows: currency. suspended counterfeit Sentence was Bogdanski: guy. I talked to the as to each of these counts. Marzeno: Yeah? Watch it. Bogdanski: tonight? So how about Can call, glance, 3. The substance of the at first you place tonight? see some proposed seems to relate to Marzeno’s sale of returned to the Bogdanski restaurant alone. call was Service. recorded bag, which con- arranged, Special inspected Cavicchia meeting After and bills.4 of the Secret Service tained counterfeit Cavicchia Bogdan- agents thoroughly other searched agents’ gaps in the Secret Under surveillance person ski’s and his car. 1) testimony and included surveillance agents, other Cavicchia alone entered Mar- Bogdanski when period Bogdanski traveled to Marzeno’s home; 2) timеs and zeno’s home. as the masquerade Cavicchia was Maplewood ap- left restaurant counterfeits, with buyer ultimate Avenue in headed towards Sanford parently Bog- as the serving middleman. Newark; 3) from the time Marzeno home, danski alone into went Avenue until left 379 Sanford while After Cavicchia remained the car. Maplewood reappeared time, period short left the in bag restaurant with the his car. house and with restau- drove Cavicchia to a Maplewood, rant in Bogdanski N. J. There III Marzeno, met with away from Cavicchia. trial, govern- At served as a Bogdanski res- Marzeno and then left the direct, he testified ment witness. On in taurant cars. two were separate money from the Secret he had received from approxi- absent the restaurant investigation. for his role in the He Service mately thirty minutes, under and were not not government, the but questioned by was Bog- they surveillance. returned in When convictions, cross-examined, his about car, told danski’s Cavicchia on Al- revealing his record. four felonies he refused with “the deal” be- proceed to it adduced the though was lаter at § surveillance, he felt was cause that there no at not mention hearing, trial did planned. had been He also originally as had to Dela- traveled Cavicchia general told Cavicchia the destination during the state pendency ware which was the 300 block San- to discuss proceedings against ford in Newark. After a short Avenue ren- state authorities the assistance with restaurant, Bog- time at the Marzeno and by informant. dered Bogdanski’s left car. At again, danski He further that his first contact asserted time, surveil- there was Secret Service Fеbruary with Secret was by lance in the area of Newark mentioned report when to his knowl- he called Bogdanski. agents saw edge activities pull up car Avenue. Mar- at Sanford pre- by Marzeno (arising from an offer car, build- got zeno out of the entered the currency to vious month to sell counterfeit building ing, leaving and was seen examination, Bog- cross Bogdanski). On small, bag. Mar- “airline-type” carrying questioned was as follows: danski got zeno into the car know to Q. you happen How to did left the time the two the location. From Ser- call Mr. Petе Cavicchia Bogdanski and Marzeno left Sanford vice? pickup point, Avenue up the car. A. I Secret Service.

failed to maintain surveillance on called buy Why you wants to the house? Yes. see me Marzeno: He Marzeno: don’t Bogdanski: Right. good? No now? deposit tonight Well, any- Bogdanski: going make a I Marzeno: He can will home just way. got he wants to. out of work. talk, Bogdanski: just Yes. Does he want to Marzeno: right? All Marzeno: what? right. Bogdanski: All Bogdanski: Because— looking he Marzeno: Is to talk or agents testifying 4. One the trial noted looking buy to the house? bag inspected appeared Cavicchia Bogdanski: buy He will house. He bag same be the carried out. of the buy wants to the house. building at 379 Sanford Avenue. Q. ry. “I He stated “it was determined that the just said, speak And want to money.” somebody about counterfeit subject allegedly genuine.” bill was Cav- icchia his trip A. did not mention Delaware Right. behalf. After Cavicchia tes- Q. You never contact with had tified, requested, pursuant defense counsel that? the Secret Service before Act,5 report by Jencks prepared A. None. police concеrning the inci- Q. January, Between the middle report dent. The Irvington was contained February, middle 1971? Service, in the files of the Secret A. No. being were the government used Q. by any You ap- weren’t chance trial preparation. prehended by distributing them for coun- terfeit sir? money, you, were prosecution did not hand over the

A. I was not. report. request Since the defense Q. You phrased were not? Act, the Jencks appar- terms of ently obligation A. felt no No. Irvington report turn over which did Q. You any investiga- weren’t under falling contain material within the nar- tion them? row category of Act” information.6 “Jencks A. of, None that I know no. attorneys The defense made no request for Later, however, Bogdanski responded to a as specifying Brady document rule question asked defense counsel refer- the basis for disclosure. ring to a he had in conversation February with Agent 1971 Cavicchia about a bill $100 police relevance to Marzeno’s report’s he that had in possession. his 2255 to Bogdanski’s § motion related credi- redirect, On prosecutor pursued bility investigat- stand. witness incident by Bogdanski. broached Thе wit- matter, ing Bogdanski’s in the an Irv- role ness indicated that Agent Cavicchia had ington the serial num- policeman recorded questioned him bill about a approximately number, ber was of the it discov- bill. That two weeks calling to Bogdanski’s report ered when af- Marzeno obtained Secret Service about Marzeno. trial, ter serial number on one matched the stated that he cooperated fully had with the prosecution the bills on which Secret Service and that the bill was deter- was This bill was a of Count based.7 mined not to be counterfeit. indictment, IV on which of the Marzeno

Later, trial, the evidence during acquitted. Coupled was with Cavicchia testified and attempted corroborated when he sto- conduct seq. words, 3500 et 5. 18 U.S.C. § MR. In other this inves- HERMANN: tigation Irvington, place is that there took report following colloquy among Kallmann, 6. The no Mr. whatsoever? prosecutor, Glavin, report. Messrs. Hermann and MR. No Secret Service KALLMANN: counsel, defense and the reflects the con- THE ask me. COURT: Don’t being fusion about necessarily what information re- MR. GLAVIN: Not on the quested prosecution’s of the extent gоvernment report. Service Secret duty to disclose. government THE COURT: I can’t make the produce they say something all, MR. does not exist. KALLMANN: .... First of you report. there is no The best such I can tell is call Cavicchia in up anything never did write and ask him. because it was immediately report by any determined there MR. KALLMANN: There is no was no prosecutable investigatable or agent. case Secret Service point, and I have been so advised prosecution having 7. The bill used agents. nothing So there is “Irvington” same number as the bill was one provide to the defendant. those found authorities state connection Well, only THE COURT: does refer investigation with a during state criminal to cross In Mr. examination. Cavicchia’s di- pursuant search a warrant of Marzeno’s referred, examination, rect that he had home on March 26. spoken first to him.

735 Brady witness falls within the government question,8 the bill in goods with pay may of the witness reliability rule when the permits of serial numbers identity was involved with of ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‍a criminal defendant’s inference be determinative States, his first contacts counterfeiting prior to v. United guilt Giglio or innocence. inferenсe, This with 150, 763, the Secret Service.9 31 L.Ed.2d 104 405 92 U.S. S.Ct. Bogdanski’s tes- Dansker, would contradict accepted, 565 v. F.2d (1972); United States at trial. timony (3d 1977) cert. dismissed 1262 Cir. 905, 805 -, 98 S.Ct. -U.S. it was not until alleges McCrane, 547 F.2d (1978); v. to uncover the after trial that he was able Illinois, Napue v. 204 See then of here. He complained information 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 79 S.Ct. U.S. action, alleging instituted this section (1959). violat- prosecution’s that the nondisclosures right ed his to a fair trial. Nevertheless, finding by the re exculpa that the evidence is viewing court IV inquiry. not end the A tory nature does Brady Maryland, The rule of because evi conviction need not be vacated 1194, 10 (1967), L.Ed.2d 215 S.Ct. “merely repetitious” dence that is is as follows: revealed to the “cumulative” has not been evi- suppression by 386 U.S. Maryland, defendant. Giles v. upon to an accused re- favorable (Fortas, 17 L.Ed.2d 737 J. 87 S.Ct. quest violates due where the evi- Dansker, concurring). See United States guilt dence is material either or to to be excul supra. evidence is found Once faith punishment, irrespective good wheth question then focuses on patory, or bad faith of the prosecution. material to the er the evidence was omitted prosеcutor Id. at at 1196. The original criminal finding guilt in the knowledge signifi charged file, cance “even if he has of evidence in his actually overlooked it.” United States decision in Supreme Court’s 110, 96 at Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at S.Ct. supra, addressed Agurs, United States v. Further, Brady the rule in has been what infor problem the often of perplexing expanded to cover situations in which no to the adversarial mation is “material” the request has been made defendant In ana case. specific in a Rather, items of evidence. exculpatory it litigated before lyzing prior the сases may some cases certain evidence be of such disclosure concerning prosecution’s the probative require prosecutor value as to the three discrete duty, the Court extracted to reveal it any to the defendant absent evi suppressed factual situations in which demand for it. materiality. its might analyzed dence be which a situation in case, The first involves the In not dis this the evidence perjurious given has prosecution witness credibility closed to Marzeno related to the or knew testimony prosecution Evi and the on the witness stand. falsity of the have known of the impeaching testimony dence the should curing Bogdanski origin storekeeper and the of the bill 8. When the checked the bill and counterfeit, was unknown. it to be took the found hurriedly. left store He then left bill and opinion denying judge 9. The trial in his foot, leaving car which the area on behind the motion, specifically concluded 2255 Later, section he had driven to the store. incident that role in the bank, his where the teller took took the bill to knowledge of counterfeit- indicated that he had bill, it, and sent it on to the Secret initialed Further, ing. that the court found Apparently the bill was later de- Service. by which to frame had the means stroyed by the Service the Secret Service since is, independent of counterfeit an source that prose- there was no basis for determined that currency. 736 cases, casts doubt on the might

statements.10 In such evidence corruption truth-seeking jury involve “a on which the relied in its jury See United States v. function of the trial 427 at process,” finding guilt. U.S. McCrane, 104, 2397, supra, 96 at the undisclosed infor- S.Ct. 547 F.2d at 206. On the hand, any mation is material if “there is reasona- which by other unrevealed evidence ble testimony might exculpatory likelihood that the false could itself seem more than judgment jury.” have affected the justifying a new trial in another case Id. at 103, at nevertheless not be considered materi- may al in a case where other evidence before situation, problematic second typified jury any removes doubts about the question Brady case, arises when the defend- guilt.11 the standards of Consequently, ant has made a specific request for infor- Agurs materiality ap- outlined in cannot bе mation has failed to vacuum, plied in a but must understood respond by revealing the requested infor- in terms of the in a particular total record cases, mation to the defendant. In such case. Agurs noted, “[wjhen prosecutor specific receives a request, relevant record, reviewing we find failure seldom, to make any response is if request Marzeno did not the records of ever, excusable.” 427 at U.S. S.Ct. Bogdanski’s prior convictions or for in at 2399. In determining materiality formation favorit relating prosecutorial a specific requеst, a reviewing court must witness, ism towards the which would have determine whether “the suppressed evi- revealed Cavicchia’s intercession on might have affected the outcome of Bogdanski’s behalf in Delaware. As to the the trial.” Id. at 96 S.Ct. at 2398. See failure Irvington police report, to reveal the Government of the Virgin Islands v. Testa- we government find and the de mark, F.2d No. 77-1567 fense were confused as to the information Jan. sought. government flatly denied

Third, report, existence of a it when no but request is made attorney defendant seems that the defense only attempted a general request made, supra. request. information not broaden his note pros- revealed See ecutor Whether will be held or not a for the local only request po to be material lice report “the on the omitted evidence ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‍incident made is creates a reasonable doubt unclear. The colloquy that did not between the prosecu otherwise exist.” Unit- ed States v. Agurs, supra, tor and defense attorneys tapered off into suggestions S.Ct. at 2401. See United States about how defendants could ob Thus, supra. tain the they sought. information light uncertainty, we hold “materiality” standards of out must exam materiality of this evidence be lined in Agurs of course do not admit to ined under the Agurs “specific request” precise application. a Necessarily, nondis standard. closure in particular a case must be viewed in light of what evidence was adduced at A further problem, not addressed In instances, some Agurs relatively Court, minor arises when a review facts that are withheld from ing a defendant court must determine whether a fair may be enough to justify a vacating multiple convic trial has been denied when nondis tion, if the undisclosed directly information are alleged. Certainly, closures the effect See, Giglio States, 150, proper v. United materiality 405 U.S. standard of must (1972); Napue S.Ct. Illinois, 31 L.Ed.2d overriding jus- v. reflect our concern with the 360 U.S. finding guilt. tice of of . . . This (1959); Mooney Holohan, 294 U.S. means that the omission must be evaluated (1935). 55 S.Ct. 79 L.Ed. 791 in the context of the entire record. (footnotes 427 U.S. at 96 S.Ct. at 2401. stated; omitted). Agurs 11. The Court in placed jury before the for resolution of the only must not be con- each nondisclosure of alone, effect of credibility. for the cumulative witness’ sidered require reversal might the nondisclosures Marzeno asserts that the Secondly, prose- alone, each standing bit of though, even cution’s failure to reveal that Cavicc- may sufficiently evidence not omitted hia had discussed assistance as new trial. A more justify “material” to informant an with Delaware authorities at Agu'rs under the decision question difficult the time when faced criminal reviewing should the is which standard charges in that state prose- is similar determining the cumulative apply cutorial nondisclosure found to violate due when, of several nondisclosures materiality McCranе, in United supra. here, specific request as was made for one the failure of the piece (the police report) of evidence and no to reveal letters of recommendation written (Bogdanski’s were made for other requests Attorney the U. on behalf of the S. of prosecutorial convictions and evidence government’s witness was held sufficient to witness). favoritism towards the We need conviction justify vacating defendant’s be- resolve this here. We find question was “the slen- testimony cause the witness’ that even if all the evidenсe is considered against der reed” on which the case strict, stan- specific request under the more McCrane, no evi- defendant rested. As in dard, the undisclosed evidence not ma- agreement be- dence was of jury’s finding terial to the of Marzeno’s tween and the Secret Service or guilt. any understanding of on the re- cooperation witness that his would be V treatment. by preferential warded relating, Marzeno’s three contentions intercession Had evidence Cavicchia’s are raised as impeachment jury, the inference been available First, that had the follows. he contends Bogdanski’s testimony made that could be prosecution produced Irvington police of Cavicchia’s was colored his awareness report, the information would have had a prefer- actions on his behalf. Evidence strong impact jury’s on the assessment pur- for the treatment is admissible ential argument His Bogdanski’s credibility. and thus if materi- poses impeachment,12 identity if the known of the jury had al, actions the failure to reveal Cavicchia’s Bogdan- of serial numbers between the bill violatе Marzeno’s to the defense would pass ski tried to and the one to a fair trial. right home, found in Marzeno’s it could have prosecu- is that the point third joining Bogdanski’s story inferred that felony convictions tor failed to elicit three only gather information for the when, direct, on record jury might was false. The felony on four other the witness questioned all Bogdanski’s testimony be led to discredit unrevealed convic- The three convictions. a) because he had the means as well as the conviction; 2) 1) burglary a 1941 tions were position favored as an informant attempted breaking a 1943 conviction Marzeno; b) “frame” because 3) burglary a 1949 con- entering; and contrary testimony, to his had been in- viction. volved scheme before incident, and thus his testimo- to the evidence in respect task with Our ny attempt was an on his to avoid whether omitted this case is to assess

prosecution. changed the outcome might have evidence so, doing possible it is of the trial. questions The undisclosed evidence raises evi- independent evaluate the effect of participa- about and Bogdanski’s knowledge accepting without Marzeno against tion in matters that were Newman, 1974); States v. supra; United 490 F.2d 139 Unit- v. 12. See United States Harris, (3d Cir. v. ed States 498 F.2d 1164 witness, Maple- when the met in Bogdanski stated while on the Marzeno two what Further, wood. there is no indication that stand. (cid:127) significant could have made a Initially, we note that the failure to re- Maplewood deviation from the to Newark convictions, considered alone veal acquire route in order to counterfeit bills conjunction or in with the other nondisclo- and use them to frame Marzeno. rise to the level alleged, sures does not agents testified to the reversible error. The unrevealed convic- all other surveillance of at times as to the merely tions are cumulative issue Further, the transaction. this inde- during credibility. United Bogdanski’s See pendent testimony fixes Marzeno as walk- Dansker, supra.. It is unreason- ing building out of the Sanford Avenue speculate jury that the be led able could airline-type bag, with an which was later Bogdanski’s veracity any to doubt more be- revealed to contain the counterfeit bills. convictions, cause of the three remote when supports judge’s This evidence district the more recent four convictions had been findings “any doubt about Marzeno’s placed in evidence.13 Thus we find no viola- guilt specula- unreasonable and be] [would omission, tion of due in this simply tive” is no way “[t]here probative find no added value of these con- Bogdanski could have framed Marzeno on jury’s victions in the assessment Bogdan- ex rel. Mar- June 1971.” United States credibility. ski’s Gengler, (D. zeno v. No. 75-297 N.J. Jan. raised, respect With to the other claims 1977), app. at reprinted Appellant’s 19. presentеd we turn first to the evidence as Thus, this evidence given independent indictment, VI of the Count the transfer apart from the we testimony $94,800 currency in counterfeit on June Bogdan- impugning find that the evidence 29, 1971. Absent testimony, ski’s would not have “affected credibility presented the evidence through the Secret outcome of the trial.”14 agents establishes that Service Marzeno and Agurs, supra at 2398. Bogdanski were under surveillance that the failure to hand We therefore hold throughout most of the night question. report was not Irvington police over the were If to “frаme” conviction on this “material” to Marzeno’s time in which he could effect the frame was count of the indictment. to the periods limited of time when he and I, Turning conspiracy to Count Maplewood Marzeno left the restaurant charge, analysis we find the same under the Newark address and when he and Mar- police the omitted evidence of the re- zeno left that address in Newark to return port was not material.15 to Maplewood. Since and his'car were searched thoroughly before meeting Thus, we find that Service Secret Mаrzeno, Bogdanski further would have testimony on the events of June had to cache the money counterfeit some- left no reasonable doubt as to where accessible to the route between Ma- guilty the counter- participation passing plewood and Newark. There is no indica- feit the convic- currency. Consequently, tion, however, could have was sentenced shall tions on which Marzeno of the specific known Newark destination not be disturbed. Further, Indeed, count, questionable conspiracy Bogdan- it is whether the unre- as to the age, testimony vealed convictions because of of an their could ski’s is neutral. The evidence entirely granted. agreement through presented be admitted in a new trial if See almost 609(b). testimony Fed.R.Evid. Service of surveil- Secret Thus, conspirators. to the con- lance of the as count, testimony spiracy was im- analysis case, 14. From our of the record in this prosecution’s case. Evidence material to the impeaching was no reasonable basis there crediting shown for dis- be considered him cannot therefore agents’ testimony. guilt innocence of material as to Marzeno’s us with basis Nor has conspiracy charge. appeal. deny- of court judgment the district CHALFANT, Appellant, J. Patricia will be af- the section 2255 motion

ing firmed. INSTITUTE, corpo- a be WILMINGTON at our 77-1254 will “appeal” ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‍No. Delaware, Jack of the State of W. ration the no- appealability, for want

dismissed Bryant and Edward B. duPont. filed having in that been appeal tice of case only. opinion from an No. 76-2132. Appeals,

United Court States Third Circuit. SEITZ, Judge, concurring. Chief Argued 1, 1977. April opinion the court be- I concur in the Agurs, I believe United cause Reargued en banc Nov. (1976) Decided Feb. a concern express so dictates. write to from the failure of the arising primarily fact that timely disclose inter- agent

a secret service had theretofore witness, the prosecution

ceded behalf pros- a pending state clearly rele-

ecution. information was Such jury’s credibility evaluation

vant

Bogdanski. possible, at all a defendant

If confront

courts should not be required context of a

the issues here involved in the proceeding the defendant wherein

§ demonstrating that the

bears the burden

omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt view, my not otherwise

that did exist. obligation

prosecutor’s timely disclosure cannot respect type to this of material overemphasized be due post the trial. A

afforded defendant at (cid:127)

trial resolution of such an issue ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‍needlessly unnecessarily

district function the court to on a

requires impinge performed by have

which should been

fact-finder at

Case Details

Case Name: United States of America Ex Rel. Joseph Marzeno v. Louis Gengler, Warden, Federal House of Detention

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Feb 27, 1978

Citation: 574 F.2d 730

Docket Number: 77-1254, 77-1360

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.