United States v. Calderón
2016 WL 3854228, 829 F.3d 84 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Brady/Giglio, the government's suppression of impeachment evidence warrants a new trial only if the evidence is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different outcome, which occurs when the suppression undermines confidence in the verdict.
Facts:
- Manuel Calderón was a sales representative and manager for GSM City and its successor business, GSM City Supercenter, which were wholesalers of cellular phones.
- In 2010, two undercover DEA officers, Steve Diaz and Peter Guevara, conducted multiple transactions where they gave Calderón large amounts of cash at GSM City without receiving any merchandise in return.
- Another employee, Angel Delguercio, acted as a confidential informant for the DEA and testified that it was common practice for customers to make large cash payments to Calderón at GSM City.
- Delguercio gave conflicting testimony about whether he personally saw Calderón receive cash at the successor business, Supercenter, eventually stating there was a 'possibility.'
- In 2012, Calderón testified before a federal grand jury investigating a money laundering scheme.
- During his testimony, when asked if he 'ever had to count any money or anything,' Calderón replied, 'No. Count money just to pay that we had to pay somebody that we owe, but that is about it, but not like received money.'
Procedural Posture:
- In August 2013, the United States indicted Manuel Calderón in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on one count of making a false declaration before a federal grand jury.
- A jury trial was held in February 2014, and the jury returned a guilty verdict.
- Calderón filed a motion for a new trial, later supplemented, arguing the government violated its Brady/Giglio disclosure obligations by withholding impeachment evidence about a government witness and other information from a related case.
- The district court denied Calderón's motion for a new trial, concluding that there was no reasonable probability that disclosure of the withheld evidence would have changed the trial's outcome.
- Calderón (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, against the United States (appellee).
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 failure to disclose impeachment evidence concerning one of its witnesses and irregularities in a related investigation warrant a new trial under the Brady/Giglio doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Lipez, J.
No. The government's failure to disclose the evidence does not warrant a new trial because there is no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the evidence been disclosed. To obtain a new trial for a Brady/Giglio violation, the defendant must show that the suppressed evidence was material, meaning its suppression undermines confidence in the trial's outcome. Here, the undisclosed impeachment evidence against the informant Delguercio (his arrest for stealing from the company) was cumulative, as his credibility was already challenged for being a paid informant. More importantly, the jury had direct, unimpeached testimony from two DEA officers who gave cash directly to Calderón at GSM City. Therefore, the jury most likely convicted Calderón for lying about these transactions, making Delguercio's weaker testimony about the other business location non-essential to the verdict. The issues from the related Florida case, involving an officer who did not testify and a minor factual inaccuracy, were not material or exculpatory in Calderón's trial.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the practical application of the materiality standard for Brady/Giglio violations, reinforcing the high threshold a defendant must meet to secure a new trial. The court demonstrates that not every instance of suppressed evidence will overturn a conviction; the evidence must be significant enough to 'undermine confidence' in the verdict. The decision emphasizes a holistic review of the trial record, showing that suppressed impeachment evidence may be deemed immaterial if it is cumulative or if overwhelming, independent evidence of guilt exists. This precedent guides lower courts to carefully weigh the potential impact of undisclosed evidence against the totality of the evidence presented at trial.
