*3 specified each driver’s route. The route Before HIGGINBOTHAM and responsibility drivers had the of measuring DeMOSS, FISH*, Judges, Circuit milk quantity of received from each Judge. District dairy samples farm and had to take of DeMOSS, shipment each Judge: received from each farm Circuit commingling
before
the milk in the tanker
I.
INTRODUCTION
processing
truck. Once delivered to the
plant,
the milk was to be
under
tested
interlocutory appeal,
govern-
In
put
standards
forth
the Milk Marketing
ment seeks review of an
of
dis-
order
(“MMA”),
Administration
which is a subdi-
court,
day
trict
which was entered the
Department
Agricul-
vision of the U.S.
trial and which excluded 25 of its witnesses
ture.
in a complex,
conspiracy
multi-defendant
involving
alleged
government’s theory
case
adulteration of
was that vari-
drivers,
individuals,
recognized
including
milk. The district court itself
ous
route
that exclusion of
witnesses was tan-
added water
the milk
de-
along
these
trucks
case,
livery
prove
tamount
to a dismissal of some of the
routes. To
its
the gov-
charges against
moving
rely
defendants.
ernment intended to
on both scienti-
is,
data,
appeal
relatively
sample
composition
This
boils down to one
fic
test
issue;
is,
trucks,
uncomplicated
reports
whether the
milk
for the
tanker
im-
testimony
district court abused its discretion
from cooperating witnesses.
posing the rather draconian sanction of These witnesses were drivers and other
AMPI
excluding
government’s witnesses from
staff members who knew of or
which
violations
the were aware of the defendants’ schemes to
itself
milk.
the testify-
found not to
been made
water down the
Most of
faith.
ing
testimony
bad
For the reasons discussed be-
witnesses whose
was ulti-
low,
mately
we find that the district court abused
excluded
the district court were
We, therefore,
pleaded
its discretion.
guilty
VACATE defendants who
to one
*
as,
Judge
sitting by designation.
District
of the Northern District of Tex-
cooperation
get
ment to
the benefit
exchange
indictment
count
against
counts
also
remaining
sentencing, and that
dismissal
of a downward
provide investigators’
*4
2)
milk adulteration
violate the
regulation;
agents
or its
at-
counsel
3)
statutes;
The
and
commit mail fraud.
testimony from
tempting to secure
indiсtment,
15,1998,
July
entered on
initial
any person
testifying
who will be
with these various
charged 29 defendants
government’s
in
case-in-chief....”
milk adulteration-related offenses.
the trial
The
court also continued
district
permit production of
April
until
5th to
trial on
initially
set for
The case
17th,
28, 1998,
March
and
rescheduled
these materials. On
16th
September
but was
30, 1998,
January
produced
then for
materials
for November
some
15,
11, 1999,
again for March
and then
order.
response
in
to the March 12th
On
(with
February 12th deadline for
31st,
response
March
and in
to a defense
a su-
discovery).1
January
On
with
correspondence
motion that all
naming
was returned
perseding indictment
individuals,
just correspondence relat-
defendants,2 and on March
four additional
witnesses,
produced, the
testifying
ed to
3, 1999,
superseding
indictment
second
district court removed the “case-in-chief’
days
Four
before
was returned.
12th
and
limitation of its March
order
date, the district court
March 15th trial
target
letters be
ordered that all such
motions, and the
hearing
held a
on various
by April
produced
2nd.
12th,
following day, March
it entered
23rd, all
defendants-
On March
again to
continuing
order
the trial once
jointly for relief
appellees had also moved
in
April
addressed
5th. The matters
Brady3 claiming
govern
under
allegations
with
hearing
March 11th
dealt
categories
withheld numerous
ment had
prosecutor
declined to
materials,
the let
exculpatory
including
who were nоt
people
letters written to
in
12th
ters referenced
the March
order.
let-
expected
testify
(“target
to
at trial
1st,
ters”),
April
court denied the
to admit their involve- On
urging them
respect
all defendants
1.By
numerous
been reached with
as a result of
November
guilty pleas, only
pre-
five defendants remained
charged in the indictments. Each was
Garrett,
Keith,
Larry
(Appellees
Sullivan,
Don
depar-
sumably hoping for a 5K1.1 downward
Woodard).
origi-
Rydeen,
and
ture based on substantial assistance.
July
nal indictment was relumed
August
1998.
pleaded
fourteen defendants
Finklea,
were
Austeen
2. These additional four
pleaded
guilty;
September,
more
four
Keith,
with
Dale
and Wilcox. Combined
and
October,
guilty;
guilty;
pleaded
twо more
remaining
as of November
the five
defendants
November,
pleaded guilty; and
three more
Keith,
Garrett,
being
Larry Don
those
dismissed from the
one more defendant was
Sullivan,
Woodard,
Rydeen,
supra
see
having
by virtue
his wife
en-
indictment
appellees.
we have our nine named
note
guilty plea.
defendants
tered a
Each of these
agreed
cooperate
government,
Brady Maryland,
bargained
sentencing
all
hear-
have their
(1963).
ings
dispositions
while some a conceded that brief continu- resulting documents and the motions ance would suffice to take sting out оf and hearings untimely productions delayed production, requested others caused, have particularly when those un- discovery a dismissal based on violations. timely productions days have come on 6th, April 5th
On and the district court immediately preceding, and even held additional hearings on the defendants’ of, day trial.
various motions to dismiss or for sanctions timely The has filed this regarding alleged failure interlocutory appeal of the district court’s timely produce materials, to discovery and order, arguing sanctions that the district it ultimately struck 25 of the by imposing court abused its discretion witnesses on the afternoon of the 5th. necessary sanction more severe than was The district cоurt ordered excluded from compliance discovery to effect with orders any witness as to whom a target by failing weigh and all of the factors required produced by letter was to be required by precedent. this Circuit’s (requiring pro- court’s March 12th order 17th), duction March but as to which III. STANDARD OF REVIEW such tardily produced. letter was The court that imposi noted after the March 11th We review district court’s determined, hearing, it gov- discovery had and the tion of sanctions for violations that, ernment should have been aware for an abuse of the district court’s discre Katz, such target Brady letters were materials tion. See United States v. 178 F.3d 4. We note that this is inconsistent with the ment cannot be have been said to on notice that, order, fact in its 1st Brady that such letter were even materials letters, explicitly target court held that the until the district court entered order on categories one of the of materials for which requiring March 12th disclosure within five disclose, the defendants’ decried a failure to days thereafter. Thus, Brady govern- were not materials. Cir.1999). have the recognized self could effect of indictment, eviscerating court’s discretion criminal district
concedes However, charges notwith- “tantamount a dismissal “admittedly is broad.” discretion, broad we an undeserved windfall standing [and constituted] court, duly consistently parties held a district who were indicted based considering imposition probablе of sanc- believe had when cause to violations, careful- discovery govern- must federal crimes.” The tions for committed factors, if it decides ly urges any several that if it violated weigh ment discov- order, all, faith, it “should acted in ery good such a sanction order will impose prejudice least severe sanction that that there no measurable prompt desired not accomplish the the defendants which could have been result — discovery Finally, full compliance the court’s cured short continuance. Sarcinelli, less government urges orders.” United States severe 1982); sanctions, Unit B see also personal Cir. such as sanctions Katz, at 372. prosecutor, could have сompliance goal
achieved the with dis- IV. DISCUSSION covery orders. we noted in As Sarcinelli The defendants counter Katz, exercising its discre a district enough, far go court did as some considering imposition of tion sought dismissal of the indictment as discovery violations should sanctions likewise, And sanction. the defendants do 1) following the rea consider the factors: that any feel less severe sanction 2) made; why sons disclosure was not govern- would suffice to ensure that party; prejudice opposing amount of comply with the ment 3) feasibility curing such court’s orders. defendants 4) trial; *6 with a continuance the and pattern that the a contend record shows Katz, other relevant circumstances. that government misconduct the makes (citing at 371 United States the sanctions chosen the district court Cir. Bentley, 875 mild, contend that further the 1989)). above, fashioning And noted in as sanctions were a valid exercise of the dis- sanction, the district court should such power discovery trict court’s to sanction impose only that which the sanction is punitive a prophylactic violations “as way compliance least to effect severe measure.” discovery the orders. Id. court’s To whether the determine heavily on a de- The relies discretion, court abused its we must evalu extolling cision the from Eleventh Circuit light ate the exercise of discretion of our Sarcinelli, which, principles though thе precedent requiring that the district court not controlling, is instructive. In United fully thoughtfully addressed each of Euceda-Hernandez, 768 F.2d
States the Sarcinelli factors noted. (11th Cir.1985), that the court noted suppressing governmental evidence A. Reasons non-disclosure for recess, lieu a granting continuance or may “a judge speedier trial achieve a res- We first consider the rea- docket, target he timely producing olution and reduce his but for not son expense sacrificing gov- does so at the the 25 excluded witnesses. The fair justice explained administration of and the accu- ernment to the district court rate timely provide determination of and inno- its failure more guilt cencе.” Id. at 1312. In target letters resulted from fact view, were striking separate the district court’s the letters in a binder that its witnesses, it- initial during which the district court had been overlooked disclo- above, target noted court letters as to the 25 was As witnesses sures. did noted that the an unintentional explicitly result of mistake. We in bad faith violate its orders conclude that district court’s find- not own the result production dispositive its late ings good and that are issue faith Indeed, no unintentional mistake. of an and that reason for non-disclosure was gov- to the improper motive was attributed good mistake made faith. tardy production.
ernment’s Prejudice B. to the defendants a decision relies on D.C. Circuit in which the court frоm the The second Sarcinelli factor we must sup- held that such a severe sanction whether consider is the defendants were rarely ap- of evidence would pression unduly prejudiced by tardy disclosure. finds propriate when the trial court The district assumed that the late not to in bad violation have been made production would prejudice the defen- remedy, where a faith and less dramatic strategy, dants’ trial but it found that tar- continuance, mitigate any such as dy so close to the disclosure commence- Marshall, prejudice. See United States v. “adversely ment of trial impacted (D.C.Cir.1998). 63, 70 We note organized preparation efficient tri- Sarcinelli, also that our own dеcision in Court,” byal counsel and ... defense prosecutor’s complete we found the failure required the filing because it of motions discovery at all contuma- provide to be scheduling of hearings. cious, nevertheless, deserving note that though We sanction of the harsh exclusion tantamount 5th, was set to commence on to a where a less severe sanction dismissal scheduled, had already district court jailing granting such as attorney’s request, one a recess defense continuance available. Tuesday Thursday the 6th until finding court’s own 9th, attorney’s to accommodate the sched government’s tardy was not disclosure appearance argument uled for oral befоre imposition bad faith militates government properly this Circuit. The of a so severe sanction as to effectuate prejudice to in notes that referred certain charges against dismissal to the Sarcinelli defendants’ defendants, especially where as discussed is, rights, injury to their substantial below, other, less were severe sanctions *7 trial, right prejudice and that does to a fair mitigate against available to minimal the encompass putting preparation not trial prejudice by suffered in the defendants disarray. v. into minor See United States this case. Webster, Cir.1998), 336 162 rely The defendants on char- what denied, 83, 145 829, 120 cert. 528 U.S. S.Ct. abuses, pattern a acterize as of disclosure (1999); L.Ed.2d 70 see alsо United States which indicates that the un- (5th Cir.1994). Neal, 27 F.3d 1050 timely disclosure was an intentional move in in As we noted our decision designed overwhelm the defendants at Martinez-Perez, States v. 941 F.2d prevent the last minute so as to them from (5th Cir.1991), preju question 302 the target able to utilize the being disclosed dice is the defendant had time to whether Despite the charac- letters. defendants’ use, put information to not whether the requests of their 21 for separate terization some effort was defense required extra discovery many throughout the continu- counsel. case, this ances of the defendants overlook Additionally, if the abundance materials that were the district timely produced was fact the cоurt determines information that, use, put fact as late to be to effective the disclosed too noted, timely provide failure to the court must also determine that
300 surprise a it have come as no to the created reasonable should information lack of pleading would have been defense that the defendants had probability that the result Whitley, previously received letters Kyles target encour- different. See aging plead guilty. As we L.Ed.2d them noted Webster, (1995). is im- case where defendant In order to determine peached plea his agreement have been differ- with his the result would whether sentence, hope for ent, should have consid- memorialized a reduced district court anticipat- that fact information regarding were in additional ered all of materials produced target to evaluate whether the ed favors from ex- difference; change cooperation made a for is cumulative im- would have however, attempted peachment prejudicial material when the that is Webster, untimely if or record the cumulative nature undisclosed. See to make a at 337-38. target prej- letters to show minimal, udice, any, highly unlikely We find it that the fail- opportunity to do so grant refused to ure to have undisclosed materials “admission” because of ability would have hindered the defense’s discovery and the of a violation impeaсh the 25 witnesses excluded re- assumption damage to the de- court’s prior garding govern- their deals with necessary sup- fendants’ ment, might question which deals call in to port repeatedly the sanction.5 We testifying against their motivation prejudice sup- no exists when held that view, In remaining defendants. our pressed newly discovered evidence is completely district court overlooked the See, e.g., cumulative. United States v. evidence the target additional that renders (5th Cir.1998); Lowder, 148 F.3d and, thus, minimizing letters cumulative Scott, Allridge v. 217-18 factor suffered Cir.1994). defendants. precise materials that were Curing prejudice C. imth a continuance discovery to be a violation in this deemed acknowledged The district court itself simple target case were 23 letters to 23 its 1st order the exclusion denying witnesses, immunity agreement a draft Brady grounds various witnesses on witness, target a 24th and a letter with continued violations dead- proposed agreement for a 25th offer orders, in scheduling lines addition to Among already witness. the information havoc” “wreaking the defense’s in the hands of the defendants the time ability efficiently prepare Court’s tardily produced these materials were trial, “might require additional continu- to 7 of the following: were the so, doing ances date.” target defense had other letters with the implicitly recognized district court that a more, plus those 7 message; same as to likely continuаnce was viable and conse- threatening the defense had coercive *8 quence tardy of disclosure. up on correspondence following target let ters; Additionally, and as to 21 of the the most of defense the defense attor- they pleaded guilty neys knew that and to the court had conceded continuance, struck with there a going deals the be plea agreements, only these 21 defendants’ in would need to for two or be three Furthermore, cluding charges days. of the the sanctioned ma- dismissal motion, § possibility produced by stated of a 5K1.1 were scheduled to be terials 2nd, Quite p.m. Friday,- only simply, were known the defense. 5:00 two assumption prejudice. 5. This contravenes the second actual requiring Sareinelli factor a full consideration dants-appellees, Mon- an days prior to the actual disclosure on excessive sanction (the trial), day day the 5th and an abuse of scheduled the district court’s discre- tion, court had already and as the district especially where brief continuance planned Tuesday prejudice to recess the would have cured and other 8th, Thursday through 6th we con- sanctions were available to ensure that the clude that a of several comply brief continuance with the district impacted days would not have either the court’s orders.
district court’s schedule or the defendants’
ability to for trial. efficiently prepare V. CONCLUSION of bad light of the absence faith on upon Based our full consideration of the part government, the minimal factors, Sarcinelli which should have guid- prejudice of substantive because of amount ed the district court’s decision on sanc- tardily cumulative nature of the dis- tions, we conclude that the district court materials, availability closed excluding abused its discretion 25 of the much less than striking severe sanction witnesses. The witnesses with of eviscerating the effect faith, prejudice acted not in bad to the case, we find that in light defendants was minimal certainly district court could most have the untimely cumulative nature of disclo- eliminated the minor with either sures, any prejudice could have been brief delаy or a less severe sanction. cured with a brief continuance. For these reasons, we VACATE district court’s
D. Other relevant factors
order of
sanctions
REMAND this
lastly requires
Sarcinelli
that the matter for
further proceedings
such
as are
court
also consider those additional
appropriate.
matters
which are relevant to determina
VACATED and REMANDED.
appropriate.
tion of
are
whether sanctions
main,
one
presents
FISH,
Judge,
District
concurring:
factor,
persuasive point
regarding this
Because I believe there were no “discov
such
allowing
which is that
a harsh sanc
case,
ery”
readily
violations in this
I
agree
tion to stand
circumstances essen
these
majority
that the distriсt court
tially
against
obliterates
individu
by imposing
abused its
discretion
sanc
upon
als who were
indicted based
duly
excluding twenty-five
tion of
witnesses for
probable
cause to believe
committed
troubled, however,
government.
I am
crimes
As
government.
we
majority’s
acceptance
uncritical
stated,
a district
“exceeds the
parties’
arguments
this is a “dis
proper
power to
bounds of its
order dis
covery” dispute
analysis
to which the
missal
indictment
when it fails to
Sarcinelli,
cases such
States v.
as United
consider
extreme
whether less
sanctions
(5th Cir.1982),
302
(a),
required
of
stitutionally
right
discovery
part would be subsection
the pertinent
entirely
character
Dis- would
alter the
and bal-
“Governmental
denominated
which is
(a)
present
of criminal
system
ance of our
Evidence.”
of
Subsection
closure
“(1)
Bagley,
Infor-
v.
473
parts:
justice.”
into two
United States
U.S.
turn is divided
“(2)
7,
667,
3375,
In-
n.
87 L.Ed.2d
675
105 S.Ct.
Subject to Disclosure”
mation
(1985) (internal
Subject
quotation
Disclosure.” 481
marks and
Not
to
formation
omitted).
too has rec-
“subject to
citation
This Court
The information
disclosure”
“(A)
(a)(1)
pretrial
Brady
both that
“is not
part
categories:
ognized
falls into five
“(B)
Defendant”;
Scott,
Defen-
remedy,” United
v.
Statement of
States
Record”; “(C)
(5th
465,
Cir.1975),
Documents and
and that
Brady
467
dant’s Prior
“(D)
Exami-
Reports of
Objects”;
“applicable
pre-trial stages.”
Tangible
Unit-
“(E)
Tests”;
(5th
Expert
666,
Wit-
Frick,
nations and
ed States v.
490
671
pos-
denied,
in the
Cir.1973),
831,
All other documents
nesses.”
cert.
419 U.S.
95
(1974).
of
government, by virtue
55,
session of the
42
It
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 57
has also
16(a)(2) (“Information
Subject
Not
rule,
Rule
“Brady
discovery
is not a
stated
Disclosure”),
except
re-
as otherwise
minimum prose-
but a rule of fairness and
are —
Act,
quired
18 U.S.C.
Jencks
obligation.”
cutorial
United States v.
§
3500—non-discoverable.
626,
Cir.1978),
Beasley, 576
630
947,
1426,
440
99
cert.
U.S.
S.Ct.
59
denied
are not de-
“target”
The
here
(1979).
L.Ed.2d 636
in Rule
by any
categories
of
scribed
16(a)(1).
defendants,
cog-
apparently
The
16,
course, explicitly
requires
Rule
fact, did
the letters
nizant
not seek
pretrial discovery
production
of the
aegis of Rule 16 but under
under the
rule,
in the
material described
while Bra
Brady Maryland,
v.
373
principles of
U.S.
rule,
discovery
dy, because
is not
(1963).
10
215
83
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
timing requirements.
contains no such
however,
progeny,
arise not
Brady and its
Harris,
v.
States
303
significant
question
Brady
produce
under
to
statement be-
because
of whether
trial,
Rule 16 has been violated can be deter-
since the
Act made it
fore
Jencks
trial,
during
mined before or
and appropri-
only
testified.
producible
after Johnson
ate
imposed
pre-
sanctions
the manner
statement
Id. at 675-76. While the
16(d)(2),
scribed
the rule. See Rule
surely
in Harris was
as valuable to
witness
P.
backward-looking
F.R.Crim. With the
impeachment
“tar-
the defense for
as the
however,
focus of Brady,
Brady
whether a
here,
found,
letters at issue
this Court
get”
occurred,3
violation has
indeed whether the
law,
no Brady
as a matter of
violation
Brady
had a
obligation,4
had occurred.
can only be determined after the trial is
The distinction
Rule 16
between
and over.5 This is
because
un-
true
disclosure
Brady as the
der Brady
required only
basis of disclosure is also
is
if the evidence
Starusko,
256,
exculpatory
impeachment
See United
v.
729
of
3.
States
F.2d
or
evidence
(3rd Cir.1984):
...,
prosecutor
261
would
to
still be forced
that,
judgment
make
calls about
recognize
what would
generally,
We
it is difficult
evidence,
trial,
owing
count as
analyze, prior
favorable
potential
whether
to
impeachment
very
piece
fact that
character
of a
of
Brady
fаlls
evidence
within
evidence as favorable will often
knowing
role
turn on
without
what
a certain wit-
existing
potential
context of the
or
play
eviden-
ness will
in the
case.
tiary
prosecutor
record. Since the
would
pronouncement
Brady,
Kyles
latest
judgment
have to
some
exercise
even if
419,
Whitley,
115
v.
514 U.S.
S.Ct.
131
subject
stringent
State were
to this most
(1995),
Supreme
L.Ed.2d 490
Court em-
obligation,
disclosure
it is hard to find mer-
phasized
prosecutor,
discretion of
complaint
respon-
it in the State’s
over the
judge,
deciding
what evidence is
sibility
tem,
judgment
sys-
existing
under the
producible
Brady:
under
prosecutor
which does not tax the
every
[T]he Constitution is not violated
time
disclose,
any
error for
failure to
absent
fails or сhooses not to dis-
showing materiality.
further
of
prove
might
helpful
close evidence that
defense.
never
We have
held that the
means, naturally,
This
prosecutor
that a
open
an
policy
Constitution demands
file
tacking
anxious about
too close to the wind
Bagley
and the
[United
rule in
States v.
piece
will disclose a favorable
of evidence.
Bagley, 473 U.S.
87
Agurs,
is (since (3rd Cir.1984) “[tjhere 256, in context of all the hindsight, in F.2d 262 only Agurs, 427 U.S. See presented. Brady evidence can be no violation of unless (evidence 112-13, 2392 is mate- 96 S.Ct. at infringes non-disclosure creates reasonable rial if omission its key right,” precluding fair trial defendant’s that, the record light in as doubt testifying witness exist); whole, Kyles v. not otherwise did of Brady sanction for non-disclosure mate- 419, 433-37, 115 Whitley, S.Ct. 514 U.S. discretion). rial abuse of Unless Bra- was (evidence (1995) 1555, 490 is 131 L.Ed.2d letters, dy production of mandаted these omission, when entire material if 16(a)(2) non-producible; Rule made them considered, “undermines confi record is if non-producible, gov- were the letters trial.”); in of the Por dence the outcome hardly could be ernment sanctioned (5th Stalder, 461, 464 retto v. 834 F.2d do, doing legally what was entitled Cir.1987) (“Omitted evidence is deemed i.e., producing Certainly, them. when, viewed in the context of the material government could not be sanctioned for record, it a reasonable entire creates doubt late, simply producing the letters without guilt as to defendant’s did not any showing to the defen- exist.”). otherwise dants. case, therefore, in What have this is we Brady I does would hold that not create a sanction pretrial in criminal right tardily “target” certain producing letters and that the violated no cases which, Brady, government may under in case. no Brady obligation Because obligation all. have had no at sanction, my opinion, appropriate, I tell, cannot without the simply We benefit agree majority with the “draconi- record, “target” of a full whether the excluding twenty-five gov- an” sanction of meaning material within the were ernment witnesses was an abuse of discre- Kubiak, Brady. United States See tion.6 1545, Cir.), 1550 cert. de 852, nied, 163, 104 S.Ct. 78 464 U.S. (1983) {Brady
L.Ed.2d 149 not violated
untimely co-conspirator disclosure state
ment, trial, which was utilized because process
the focus of due violation is “not nondisclosure,
upon
upon
the fact
but
impact
jury’s
on the
of nondisclosure
was,
view,
my
860-61
harsh.
Campagnuolo, 592 F.2d
Cir.
too
As noted
Kubiak,
1979).
opinion,
majority
also United States v.
704
court found
(11th Cir.) (in
tardy production
here
not the
F.2d
1549-50
determin
Supreme
bad
ing
exculpatory
in
result of
faith. The
Court has
whether nondisclosure
process,
discussed the costs and benefits of the exclu-
constituted a denial of due
formation
upon
sionary rule for
Amendment violations
"the focus is not
the fact of nondisclo
Fourth
sure,
appear
equally
which
to me to
upon
impact
terms
nondisclo-
verdict."),
denied,
applicable
jury’s
sure
to this case:
on the
cert.
464
U.S.
(1983);
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee, REYES-LUGO,
Jorge George aka
Garza, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-41083. Appeals,
United States Court
Fifth Circuit. 3, 2001.
Jan.
Rehearing Rehearing En Banc
Denied Feb. governmental magnitude ideals of rectitude im- of the benefit conferred pede unacceptably truth-finding func- guilty such defendants offends con- basic judge objectionable jury. tions of collateral An justice ceрts system. of the criminal Indis- consequence of this interference application exclusionary criminate justice system’s criminal truth- rule, therefore, may generate] well disre- finding guilty function is some defen- spect jus- for the law and administration may go dants free or receive reduced sen- tice. plea tences as a result favorable bar- Leon, 897, 906-08, United States v. gains. Particularly law when enforcement (1984) (inter- L.Ed.2d objective good officers have acted faith omitted). quotation nal marks citations minor, transgressions or their have been and for consideration notes them declined will- light of their departure sentencing ap- as to questionnaires interviews with or truthfully testify coopеrate ingness to which people, some of proximately the re- in the any involve- defendants denied various defendants. maining ment, inconsistent position which was which, therefore, con- pleas and with their spe- violations Along with substantive material that should statutes, impeachment specifically stituted milk adulteration cific 331(a)(2), March 12th 331(a), disclosed. §§ the indict- have been 21 U.S.C. order, gov- mail fraud vio- court directed the charged substantive ments 1) conspiracies to: de- days and various within five lations ernment milk by obstructing order, “any [target] fraud copies
Notes
notes (i.e., the March 12th order the addition of screening questionnaires pro- were to be any target letters to non-testifying wit “Brady impeachment material” duced nesses and the addition of the investiga potentially because revealed inconsis- notes). A tors’ written order to the effect tent statements made the various de- of orally the sanctions ordered was en Yet, fendants. no defense counsel ever 9th, it, April tered on and in having denied been told court stated question “[t]he court does not about these items their content. government’s good faith.” The district 2nd, April government pro- Late on court went on to state: duced documents to the defense as direct- assuming untime- ed the district court’s March 31st mod- ly production ultimately would not have ification of 12th its March order. The adversely impacted the defense’s trial government supplemented production strategy, it nonetheless unquestionably (the morning 5th adversely impacted organized