In United States v. Bruce, --- F.3d ---, No. 19-10289 (9th Cir. 2021)', the Court affirmed Mr. Bruce's convictions for conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371, Attempt to Possess with Intent to Distribute Heroin or Marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and Bribery: Public Official Accepting a Bribe, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(C).
The case arose from Bruce’s involvement in a drug smuggling scheme at the United States Penitentiary at Atwater, California, where he worked as a correctional officer.
"Bruce raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues the district court erred by admitting testimony from another participant in the smuggling scheme who identified Bruce from a Facebook photo. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the government’s identification evidence. Second, Bruce argues he is entitled to a new trial because the government violated the discovery obligations imposed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In particular, Bruce argues the government violated his right to due process because it failed to disclose evidence of another prison guard’s alleged malfeasance. We agree with Bruce that at least some of the withheld evidence was exculpatory, but conclude it was not material within the meaning of Brady."
There is helpful language in the opinion to use in future cases.
On IDs:
"An identification procedure is suggestive when it focuses upon a single individual thereby increasing the likelihood of misidentification."
"Among other factors, we have considered the witness’s opportunity to view the person being identified, the witness’s degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’s prior description, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the prior observation of the suspect and the confrontation."
On Brady:
"Exculpatory evidence includes evidence that is favorable to the defense, meaning “evidence that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant.” “Any evidence that would tend to call the government’s case into doubt is favorable for Brady purposes.”
"The obligations imposed by Brady are not limited to evidence prosecutors are aware of, or have in their possession. Rather, individual prosecutors have 'the duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf' as part of their “responsibility to gauge the likely net effect of all such evidence” to the case at hand."
"'Because prosecutors are in a ‘unique position to obtain information known to other agents of the government,’ they have an obligation to 'disclose what they do not know but could have learned.' Prosecutors cannot turn a blind eye to their discovery obligations."
"The responsibility imposed by Brady includes looking beyond evidence in the prosecutor’s file; there were striking similarities between the two smuggling operations; Hayes was directly involved in the Atwater investigation that led to Bruce’s arrest and had access to some of the witnesses who testified against Bruce; and Bruce’s trial theory argued someone else was responsible for the smuggling at Atwater. Under the facts presented, we conclude this evidence was exculpatory within the meaning of Brady and at the very least the government was required to investigate it."
"Evidence is sometimes considered material if the government’s other evidence at trial is circumstantial, or if defense counsel is able to point out significant gaps in the government’s case through cross-examination, or if witnesses provided inconsistent and inaccurate testimony."
