United States v. Blackley
986 F. Supp. 600, 1997 WL 754231, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19293 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government's constitutional duty under Brady v. Maryland is limited to disclosing material exculpatory evidence relevant to guilt or punishment. This duty does not compel the production of materials sought for collateral attacks on an indictment, publicly available documents, or full witness transcripts when the defense has been notified of the witness's identity and the nature of their exculpatory information.
Facts:
- Ronald Henderson Blackley, a government employee, was subject to investigations by the Department of Agriculture Inspector General (USDA-IG) and the Agency for International Development Inspector General (U.S. AID-IG).
- Blackley was alleged to have received payments in 1993 that were reportable under the Ethics in Government Act.
- The indictment against Blackley alleged that he failed to report certain payments, including checks written to him and his wife by an individual named Charles Fuller, on his required government financial disclosure forms.
- A former U.S. AID administrator, Larry Byrne, told Blackley's counsel that an internal U.S. AID report on Blackley was favorable and concluded that allegations against him were unfounded.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Henderson Blackley was indicted by a grand jury for alleged violations of the Ethics in Government Act.
- The case was brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal trial court.
- Blackley, the defendant, filed a motion to compel the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) to produce various materials, arguing they constituted exculpatory evidence required under Brady v. Maryland.
- The materials requested included internal agency reports, government prosecution policies, and grand jury testimony of witnesses.
- The court ordered the OIC to produce some of the requested agency reports and grand jury transcripts for in camera review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's constitutional duty under Brady v. Maryland to disclose material exculpatory evidence compel it to produce internal agency reports and policies sought for collateral challenges, or the full grand jury testimony of witnesses whose identities and exculpatory information have already been revealed to the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Lamberth, District Judge
No. The government's duty under Brady v. Maryland does not compel the production of the requested materials. The court reasoned that the Brady obligation is strictly limited to evidence that is material to a defendant's guilt or punishment, not evidence sought for collateral challenges to an indictment, such as claims of selective prosecution or lack of jurisdiction. The court further held that materials publicly available, like agency policy manuals, are not 'suppressed' by the prosecution and thus do not fall under Brady. Finally, the government fulfills its duty by providing the defense with the identities of exculpatory witnesses and summaries of their favorable testimony; it is not required to produce the underlying grand jury transcripts or interview notes because the defense then has the means to acquire the information itself.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the practical boundaries of the prosecution's pre-trial Brady obligations, reinforcing that Brady is a due process protection against suppression of crucial evidence, not a general tool for criminal discovery. It establishes a clear distinction between evidence exculpatory to the merits of a case (guilt/innocence) and evidence useful only for procedural or collateral attacks on the prosecution itself. The ruling provides prosecutors a safe harbor, allowing them to satisfy their duty by identifying favorable witnesses and information without necessarily turning over their entire work product, such as grand jury transcripts, so long as the defense can access the information through reasonable diligence.
