United States v. Hector Morales
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5500, 2014 WL 1203140, 746 F.3d 310 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Brady v. Maryland, the government's suppression of favorable evidence violates due process only if the evidence is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Facts:
- Hector Morales and his son operated Intelligent Payment Services (IPS), a business that purported to collect bad checks for small businesses.
- IPS agents, using false company names, obtained personal and banking information from these businesses, including voided checks, under the pretense of needing it to wire collected funds.
- Using this information, IPS made approximately $645,000 in unauthorized withdrawals from the businesses' bank accounts, claiming they were for leases on credit-card processing equipment.
- Over a 12-month period, Morales personally deposited $439,000 from IPS funds into his accounts and used an additional $55,000 of IPS funds for personal expenses.
- A Secret Service team led by Agent Jason Kane executed a search warrant on the IPS office.
- When agents arrived, Morales and his daughter, Paulina, were in his office.
- Inside Morales's office, agents found a laptop with a partially completed fraudulent 'lease collection' form open on the screen, along with victims' financial information and $8,000 in cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Hector Morales was indicted in federal district court on nine counts of mail fraud.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Morales on all counts.
- Three weeks after the trial, the assistant U.S. attorney disclosed two previously unseen emails from the lead Secret Service agent to Morales's defense counsel.
- Morales filed a motion for a new trial in the district court, alleging the government's failure to disclose the emails violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland.
- The district court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Morales appealed the district court's denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 two internal emails from its lead agent until after trial violate the defendant's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland when the other evidence of the defendant's guilt is overwhelming?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Chief Judge
No, the government's post-trial disclosure of the emails does not violate the defendant's due process rights because the suppressed evidence was not material. A Brady violation has three elements: 1) the evidence must be favorable to the accused, 2) it must have been suppressed by the government, and 3) it must be material. Here, the court focused on materiality, which requires a 'reasonable probability' that disclosure would have produced a different verdict. The first email, containing a hearsay statement from Morales's daughter that she was using the laptop, was not material because the other evidence of Morales's deep involvement in the fraud was overwhelming; the government's case did not hinge on whether he was 'caught red-handed' at that exact moment. The second email, in which Agent Kane made unprofessional and blustering remarks about tasing a pet, had minimal impeachment value as it was an internal message with no real-world consequences. Given the strength of the evidence against Morales, neither email, individually or cumulatively, undermines confidence in the jury's verdict.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high threshold for establishing the 'materiality' prong of a Brady claim, demonstrating that a conviction will be upheld despite prosecutorial nondisclosure if the other evidence of guilt is overwhelming. The decision underscores that not every piece of suppressed favorable evidence will lead to a new trial; it must be significant enough to create a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The court also thoughtfully discusses the circuit split on whether inadmissible evidence can be material under Brady, signaling its agreement with the majority view that it can be if it could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, though it ultimately decides the case on other grounds.
