Conley v. United States , 415 F.3d 183 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-2424
KENNETH M. CONLEY,
Petitioner, Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
and Baldock,* Senior Circuit Judge
Saul M. Pilchen, with whom Robert S. Bennett, Jonice Gray
Tucker, Robert W. Scheef, and Thomas J. Dougherty, were on brief
for appellee.
Bradly J. Schlozman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, with
whom R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General, Mark L.
Gross, and Teresa Kwong, were on brief for appellant.
July 20, 2005
*
Of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by
designation.
BALDOCK, Senior Circuit Judge. The question in this
appeal is whether the Government’s suppression of impeachment
evidence violated Petitioner Kenneth Conley’s right to due process
under the Fifth Amendment.1 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87
(1963). The district court answered yes and granted Petitioner’s
motion to set aside his conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have
jurisdiction, id. § 2253(a), and affirm.
I.
The historical facts of this case are well known and need
not be repeated in full. See United States v. Conley, 186 F.3d 7,
11-15 (1st Cir. 1999) (Conley I); United States v. Conley, 103 F.
Supp. 2d 45, 49-51 (D. Mass. 2000) (Conley II); United States v.
Conley, 249 F.3d 38, 40-43 (1st Cir. 2001) (Conley III); Conley v.
United States, 164 F. Supp. 2d 216, 217-21 (D. Mass. 2001) (Conley
IV); Conley v. United States, 323 F.3d 7, 9-11 (1st Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (Conley V); Conley v. United States, 332 F. Supp. 2d 302,
306-309 (D. Mass. 2004) (Conley VI); see also Dwan v. City of
Boston, 329 F.3d 275, 276-77 (1st Cir. 2003). In 1995, police
officers chased four homicide suspects through Boston. The vehicle
chase ended when the suspects turned into a cul-de-sac (Woodruff
1
The Government’s good faith (or lack thereof) in failing to
disclose favorable evidence is irrelevant. Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 282 (1999).
For ease of exposition, we (like the Supreme Court) refer to the
Government’s nondisclosure of favorable evidence as the
“suppression” of evidence. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; Strickler,
527 U.S. at 282.
-3-
Way). The four suspects fled on foot. One of the first officers
on the scene, Michael Cox, gave chase. Cox pursued one suspect,
Robert Brown, towards a fence. Meanwhile, other officers arrived
at the “confused and changing scene[.]” Conley V, 323 F.3d at 16.
Officer Richard Walker arrived fourth; Petitioner fifth. Both
Walker and Petitioner joined the foot chase. Other officers in the
chase mistakenly took Cox, an undercover officer dressed in
plainclothes, as a fleeing suspect. They caught Cox at the fence
and proceeded to brutally beat him. The assaulting officers
discovered their mistake and dispersed, leaving Cox badly injured.
Petitioner ultimately apprehended Brown.
The Boston Police Department Internal Affairs Division
(IAD) thereafter commenced an investigation into Cox’s beating. An
IAD officer interviewed Walker during the investigation. Walker
informed IAD he observed Cox chase Brown towards the fence on
Woodruff Way. Walker further stated that he observed a police
officer behind Cox, but he could not identify the officer. Walker,
however, subsequently retracted his statement about observing an
officer behind Cox.
In 1997, a federal grand jury convened to determine if
the officers involved in Cox’s beating used excessive force in
violation of federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 242. An FBI agent
interviewed Walker. According to an FBI memorandum memorializing
the details of the interview, Walker agreed to take a polygraph
-4-
examination concerning his retraction of the statement about
observing another officer behind Cox. The FBI memorandum, in
relevant part, states:
[Walker] felt [compelled to say he saw
something during the IAD interview] because he
knows [Cox] and likes [Cox and] he felt bad
that he could not say what happened and
therefore convinced himself that he actually
saw someone or something. But since that
interview he has convinced himself that he did
not actually see anyone behind [Cox] or anyone
hit [Cox]. WALKER also suggested that perhaps
if he was hypnotised [sic] he might truly
recall what was going on versus what he
indicates was tunnel vision.
(emphasis added). Walker subsequently refused to take a polygraph
examination.
The grand jury subpoenaed Petitioner and Walker to
testify during the course of its investigation. Petitioner
testified that: he did not observe anyone beating Cox; he pursued
Brown to the fence; he did not see anyone between himself and
Brown; he pursued Brown over the fence and apprehended Brown.
Walker testified that: he did not see anyone beating Cox; he
observed Cox chase Brown towards the fence; he observed Brown “flip
over” the fence; he observed Cox grab at Brown as he flipped over
the fence; and he observed Cox come back down without clearing the
fence while Brown landed on the other side of the fence. The
prosecutor also questioned Walker about his prior statement to IAD:
Q: [D]id you see someone behind Officer Cox
as he was going through the fence?
A: No, I didn’t.
-5-
Q: So, why did you say that you did to
Internal Affairs?
A: At the time of the interview with Internal
Affairs . . . I started feeling guilty, like I
should have seen more than what really
happened. . . . I sat there, and I’m conjuring
up pictures of what he was asking me and what
I should have seen. Like I said, I felt
guilty not seeing more than what I saw and I
should have, but my attention was focused on
my chasing this guy towards the fence. Okay?
He [the IAD officer] asked me the question,
‘Did I see anyone,’ or whatever the question
was, and I was sitting there saying that from
where I was, maybe I should have seen someone,
and I told him, ‘Yes, I did.’ That’s the
reason for my answer.
Q: And why were you feeling guilty?
A: Like I said, I should have seen, things
are happening directly in front of you, and
you’re sitting there saying, there are four
people in this room, but I only saw two. It
shouldn’t be that way. I should have seen all
four people. It was right in front of me.
Walker further testified he was “sure” about his grand jury
testimony. The grand jury did not indict any officers for
violating § 242.
A separate grand jury, however, indicted Petitioner for
obstruction of justice and perjury. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1623.
The grand jury charged Petitioner with perjury for his testimony
that: (1) he did not observe another individual chase Brown to the
fence (count I); and (2) he did not observe anyone beating Cox
(count II). The obstruction of justice charge (count III) was
derivative of the other two charges. Petitioner pleaded not
guilty. The Government produced Walker’s grand jury transcripts
-6-
during discovery, but not the FBI memorandum. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
16(a)(1)(E).
Trial commenced in 1998. The Government presented the
testimony of Cox, Walker, and Brown (the fleeing suspect) to prove
Petitioner perjured himself before the grand jury. Cox testified
he pursued Brown to the fence and unsuccessfully grabbed at Brown
as he scaled the fence. Cox testified that no other officer was
ever between himself and Brown. Walker testified he observed Cox
chase Brown to the fence. Walker observed Brown scale the fence
and Cox grab at him, but did not observe anything thereafter.
Brown testified he observed an African-American male in black
clothing (a description that fit Officer Cox) chasing him as he ran
towards the fence and, as he scaled the fence, felt someone touch
his foot. After scaling the fence, Brown looked back and observed
police officers beating Cox. Brown made eye contact with a tall
Caucasian officer (a description that fit Petitioner) who was
standing next to the officers beating Cox. Brown testified the
same tall white officer arrested him on the other side of the
fence.
The jury convicted Petitioner on count I, finding
Petitioner perjured himself when he testified he did not observe
any other officer chase Brown to the fence. The obstruction of
justice conviction on count III necessarily followed. The jury
acquitted Petitioner on count II, finding Petitioner did not commit
-7-
perjury when he testified he did not observe any officer beating
Cox. We affirmed on appeal, holding (among other things) the
Government presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict
Petitioner. Conley I, 186 F.3d at 19-20. Petitioner subsequently
learned the Government failed to disclose impeachment evidence,
including the FBI memorandum, in its possession prior to trial. He
filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court granted.
Conley II, 103 F. Supp. 2d at 58 (Keeton, J.). On appeal, we
reversed because “the district court did not apply the correct
legal test[,]” Conley III, 249 F.3d at 39, and ordered the
execution of Petitioner’s sentence. Id. at 47.
Petitioner thereafter filed the instant § 2255 motion in
the district court to set aside his perjury and obstruction of
justice convictions. The district court granted the motion,
finding Petitioner carried his burden under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 of
showing the suppressed evidence would probably produce an acquittal
upon retrial. Conley IV, 164 F. Supp. 2d at 223 (Keeton, J.); see
also United States v. Wright, 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir. 1980)
(establishing four elements a defendant must satisfy to be entitled
to a new trial under Rule 33). On appeal, we again reversed. The
en banc Court, however, withdrew the opinion when it granted
Petitioner rehearing. Conley V, 323 F.3d at 11. The en banc Court
held the district court incorrectly employed the Wright test when
it granted Petitioner a new trial because a new-evidence claim
-8-
under Wright is not cognizable under § 2255. Id. at 11, 13-14.
The en banc Court, therefore, vacated the district court’s decision
and remanded the case for the district court to consider
Petitioner’s new-evidence claim under Brady, which is “a settled
basis for collateral attack.” Id. at 14, 16. In so doing, the en
banc Court ordered the case reassigned to a different district
judge. Id. at 15.
On remand, the newly-assigned district judge faithfully
followed the Conley V mandate. See Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at
305-306 (Young, C.J.). The court cataloged the “new” or suppressed
evidence – the so-called “Brady material,” see Strickler v. Greene,
527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999) – and then considered the evidence
individually and cumulatively. Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 310-
12, 315-24. The court concluded the Government’s failure to
disclose the FBI memorandum violated Petitioner’s right to due
process under Brady because the document could have been used at
trial to impeach Walker. Id. at 319. The district court found the
remainder of the suppressed evidence immaterial under Brady.2 Id.
at 320-22.
2
We do not express any opinion on the remainder of the
suppressed evidence, including Brown’s booking report, because the
Government’s failure to disclose the FBI memorandum warrants habeas
relief. As the en banc Court predicted, the district court’s
“well-worked-out assessment” greatly assisted our evaluation of
Petitioner’s Brady claim. See Conley V, 323 F.3d at 15.
-9-
II.
On appeal, the Government argues its suppression of the
FBI memorandum did not prejudice Petitioner because the memorandum
was cumulative of other impeachment evidence in Petitioner’s
possession prior to trial. The Government also claims Petitioner
would not have used the FBI memorandum at trial and, if he had, he
still would not have suffered any prejudice. Reviewing
Petitioner’s Brady claim de novo, see Moreno-Morales v. United
States, 334 F.3d 140, 145 (1st Cir. 2003), we reject the
Government’s three arguments.3
A.
The Fifth Amendment provides no person shall be deprived
of liberty without due process. U.S. Const. amend V. In Brady,
373 U.S. at 87, the Supreme Court held the Government’s suppression
of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process where the
evidence is material to guilt or punishment. To establish a Brady
violation, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the evidence
3
Some tension exists within this Circuit over the proper
standard of review for Brady claims raised in a § 2255 motion. The
materiality question under Brady – the third Brady component going
to constitutional error – is a mixed question of law and fact.
Ouimette v. Moran, 942 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1991). Some deference
to the district court’s resolution of fact-dominated questions in
the Brady context is therefore due, even on collateral review. Cf.
id.; Ellis v. United States, 313 F.3d 636, 641 (1st Cir. 2002). In
Moreno-Morales, 334 F.3d at 145, however, we reviewed a Brady
materiality question raised in the context of a § 2255 motion de
novo. We need not resolve the tension in this case because
Petitioner prevails even under the more onerous (or less
deferential) de novo standard.
-10-
at issue is favorable to him because it is exculpatory or
impeaching; (2) the Government suppressed the evidence; and
(3) prejudice ensued from the suppression (i.e., the suppressed
evidence was material to guilt or punishment). Strickler, 527 U.S.
at 281-82.
Impeachment evidence must be material before its
suppression justifies a new trial. Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S.
1, 5 (1995) (per curiam). The suppression of impeachment evidence
is “material” when a reasonable probability exists “that the result
of the trial would have been different if the suppressed documents
had been disclosed to the defense.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 289.
A “reasonable probability” exists if the Government’s evidentiary
suppression undermines confidence in the verdict. Kyles v.
Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995). “This somewhat delphic
‘undermine confidence’ formula suggests that reversal might be
warranted in some cases even if there is less than an even chance
that the evidence would produce an acquittal.” United States v.
Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1216, 1220 (1st Cir. 1993); see also United
States v. Cunan, 152 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 1998) (explaining a
petitioner may be entitled to a new trial under Brady without
convincing the court of the certainty of a different outcome).
“Thus, the law makes it easier for [habeas petitioners] to obtain
a new trial where the government has engineered an unfair trial by
-11-
withholding material exculpatory [or impeachment] evidence.”
United States v. Josleyn, 206 F.3d 144, 153 (1st Cir. 2000).
We evaluate the strength of the impeachment evidence and
the effect of its suppression in the context of the entire record
to determine its materiality. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S.
667, 683 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976).
Impeachment evidence is important because “if disclosed and used
effectively, it may make the difference between conviction and
acquittal.” Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676. In other words, “[t]he
jury’s estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of a given
witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence[.]” Napue
v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). That is why, in the Brady
context, the Court has repeatedly stressed “the effective
impeachment of one eyewitness can call for a new trial even though
the attack does not extend directly to others[.]” Kyles, 514 U.S.
at 445 (citing Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112-13 & n.21).
The Government’s suppression of impeachment evidence,
therefore, can warrant a new trial “where the evidence is highly
impeaching or when the witness’ testimony is uncorroborated and
essential to the conviction.” United States v. Martinez-Medina,
279 F.3d 105, 126 (1st Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). The Supreme
Court, for example, has found Brady violations where the Government
failed to disclose impeachment evidence that could have been used
to impugn the credibility of the Government’s “key witness,” see
-12-
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-55 (1972), or that could
have “significantly weakened” key eyewitness testimony. Kyles, 514
U.S. at 441, 453. Suppressed impeachment evidence is immaterial
under Brady, however, if the evidence is cumulative or impeaches on
a collateral issue. United States v. Dumas, 207 F.3d 11, 16 (1st
Cir. 2000); see also Moreno-Morales, 334 F.3d at 148 (finding
suppressed impeachment evidence that “largely mirror[ed]” disclosed
impeachment evidence immaterial); United States v. Gonzalez-
Gonzalez, 258 F.3d 16, 25 (1st Cir. 2001) (finding suppressed
impeachment evidence immaterial where the evidence was cumulative
of similar disclosed impeachment evidence); Barrett v. United
States, 965 F.2d 1184, 1192 (1st Cir. 1992) (same); United States
v. Sanchez, 917 F.2d 607, 618 (1st Cir. 1990) (same). Suppressed
impeachment evidence, if cumulative of similar impeachment evidence
used at trial (or available to the petitioner but not used) is
superfluous and therefore has little, if any, probative value.
United States v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 239, 246 (7th Cir. 1995); see also
Fed. R. Evid. 403 (providing cumulative evidence may be excluded
even if relevant).
Similarly, suppressed impeachment evidence has little
probative value if additional evidence strongly corroborates the
witness’s testimony the suppressed evidence might have impeached.
Cf. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 292-94, 296. The Brady-materiality test
is not, however, a sufficiency of the evidence test. Id. at 290;
-13-
McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24, 37 (1st Cir. 2002) (en banc). In
Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434-35, the Supreme Court explained that a
habeas petitioner “need not demonstrate that after discounting the
inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there
would not have been enough left to convict. The possibility of an
acquittal on a criminal charge does not imply an insufficient
evidentiary basis to convict.”
B.
In this case, the Government’s suppression of the FBI
memorandum violated Petitioner’s right to due process under Brady.
To begin, the FBI memorandum was favorable to Petitioner because he
could have used the document at trial to impeach Walker’s ability
to recall. See, e.g., Dumas, 207 F.3d at 16 (recognizing “ability
to recall” as a valid impeachment method). Indeed, the FBI
memorandum was “highly impeaching.” See Martinez-Medina, 279 F.3d
at 126; see also Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 316-17. Walker’s
request to be hypnotized in order to “truly recall” the events
preceding Cox’s beating indicates, at best, that he did not
remember what occurred on Woodruff Way and, at worst, that he
“convinced himself” of a new version of events to protect his
friend, Officer Cox. The implication of the latter undermines
Walker’s testimony “[s]ince the evolution over time of a given
eyewitness’s description can be fatal to [his] reliability[.]”
Kyles, 514 U.S. at 444; see also Moreno-Morales, 334 F.3d at 148
-14-
(acknowledging “the impeaching power of a witness’s evolving
story.”).
Next, the Government wisely conceded it improperly
suppressed the FBI memorandum. See Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at
309, 312 & n.8. While new trials are not granted under Brady to
punish prosecutors, see Agurs, 427 U.S. at 110, we need not
entirely ignore the Government’s failure to disclose evidence. See
Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1220. As Judge Posner explained, the
“gravity of the prosecutors’ misconduct is relevant only insofar as
it may shed light on the materiality of the infringement of the
defendants’ rights; it may support, but it can never compel, an
inference that the prosecutors resorted to improper tactics because
they were justifiably fearful without such tactics the defendants
might be acquitted.” Boyd, 55 F.3d at 241.
We thus turn to the dispositive materiality inquiry. The
question is whether the Government’s suppression of the FBI
memorandum, viewed in the context of the entire record, undermines
confidence in the outcome of Petitioner’s trial. The Government
presented the testimony of Cox, Walker, and Brown to prove
Petitioner perjured himself when he denied seeing Cox pursue Brown
(count I). The trio’s testimony provided sufficient evidence to
convict Petitioner.4 See Conley I, 186 F.3d at 19-20; Conley V,
4
The dissent, no doubt, applies a sufficiency of the evidence
test to conclude the Government’s suppression of the FBI memorandum
was immaterial. See dissent op. at 4, 16. The dissent’s
-15-
323 F.3d at 16. The weakness in the Government’s case, however,
“lies in the absence of any direct evidence as to what [Petitioner]
in fact observed during the early morning hours of January 25, 1995
in the cul-de-sac at the end of Woodruff Way.” Conley I, 186 F.3d
at 19; see also Conley V, 323 F.3d at 16 (explaining the
Government’s evidence at trial was “always circumstantial because
no one testified that he or she saw [Petitioner] looking at Cox in
pursuit of Brown and [Petitioner] never admitted seeing him.”);
Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 324 (detailing the troubling aspects
of the Government’s “highly circumstantial” case). The
Government’s case, therefore, hinged entirely on the credibility of
its witnesses. See Conley I, 186 F.3d at 20; Conley IV, 164 F.
Supp. 2d at 223; Conley V, 323 F.3d at 16.
Cox, as the district court recognized, “was an
extraordinarily sympathetic victim – a Boston police officer struck
down in the line of duty, viciously beaten and permanently injured
by fellow officers.” Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 315. Cox’s
testimony, however, raised serious problems for the Government.
For example, Cox testified (unlike any other witness) that “[he]
saw two [suspects] run towards the fence[.]” The Government
explained this discrepancy in closing by arguing a “concussion” may
application of the incorrect legal test leads, unsurprisingly, to
its indignation, id. at 2, ability to distinguish analogous cases,
id. at 12 n.4, parade of horribles, id. at 18-19, and bewilderment
concerning today’s holding, id. at 13, 16.
-16-
have affected Cox’s ability to recall. The evidence supported the
Government’s explanation. Cox suffered severe head trauma as a
result of the assault, losing consciousness and memory at the
scene. Thus, as the Government argued, Cox’s head trauma
tragically limited the evidentiary value of his testimony.
Brown’s testimony also proved problematic. Petitioner
impeached Brown with evidence of his previous felony convictions.
See Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). Brown also testified (unlike any other
witness) that he observed a tall white officer – Petitioner,
according to the Government – standing next to the officers beating
Cox. The jury, however, ostensibly rejected Brown’s testimony
about Petitioner’s position at the scene of the beating because it
acquitted him on count II (i.e., for testifying he did not observe
anyone beating Cox). Consequently, Brown’s testimony had little,
if any, corroborative value.
Given the inherent weaknesses in Cox’s and Brown’s
testimony, the Government relied heavily upon Walker’s testimony.
Walker provided a critical link in the Government’s chain of
circumstantial evidence; namely, a disinterested eyewitness account
of the chase. See Strickler, 527 U.S. at 293 (recognizing the
importance of disinterested eyewitness testimony). A fair reading
of Walker’s testimony in the context of the entire record confirms
that his testimony was the linchpin of the Government’s case on
count I. Tellingly, the Government never argues otherwise despite
-17-
the district court’s same conclusion. See Conley VI, 332 F. Supp.
2d at 315.
Prior to trial, however, Petitioner did not know the
Government’s key witness previously suggested he be hypnotized to
“truly recall” the events preceding Cox’s beating. Without any
other similar material, Petitioner did not impeach Walker’s ability
to recall at trial. Consequently, the Government’s suppression of
the FBI memorandum deprived the jury of critical information. See
Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154-55 (explaining the jury is entitled to know
of impeachment evidence when such evidence could impugn the
credibility of a key witness). “Disclosure of [the FBI memorandum]
would have resulted in a markedly weaker case for the prosecution
and a markedly stronger one for the defense.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at
441. A cross examination of Walker that raised serious doubts
about his ability to recall could have changed the course of
Petitioner’s trial. Cf. United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514, 519
(D.C. Cir. 1996); Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 316. This is
particularly true given the Government’s acknowledgment to the jury
of Cox’s memory problems and Brown’s lack of credibility. Because
Walker was essential to the Government’s case, and his personal
credibility potentially dispositive, the Government’s suppression
of the FBI memorandum may have made the difference between a
conviction or acquittal of Petitioner on count I. Bagley, 473 U.S.
at 676. The Government’s suppression of the FBI memorandum
-18-
undermines confidence in Petitioner’s count I conviction because a
reasonable probability exists the verdict would have been different
if the Government disclosed the memorandum to the defense. Kyles,
514 U.S. at 434. Therefore, the Government’s suppression of the
FBI memorandum was material under Brady.
C.
The Government’s three arguments to the contrary are
unpersuasive. First, the Government argues the FBI memorandum is
immaterial under Brady because it is cumulative of Walker’s
properly disclosed grand jury testimony. This argument fails
because, as every judge to consider the evidence has concluded, it
mischaracterizes the evidence. See Conley IV, 164 F. Supp. 2d at
223 (Keeton, J.) (concluding “the newly discovered evidence is
highly probative and neither immaterial nor cumulative in
nature.”); Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 316 (Young, C.J.) (finding
the FBI memorandum opened an entirely new, and hence not
cumulative, line of cross examination); Conley V, 323 F.3d at 30-31(Torruella, J., dissenting) (asserting the “undisclosed impeachment
evidence is, for the most part, minor and cumulative[]” and then
dismissing Walker’s hypnotism statement as weak, but not
cumulative, impeachment evidence).5
5
We do not read today’s dissent as suggesting otherwise. To
the contrary, the dissent (correctly and critically) notes the FBI
memorandum contains two “pieces of information” that Petitioner did
not previously know: Walker’s hypnotism statement and his
(un)willingness to submit to a polygraph test. See dissent op. at
-19-
We agree the FBI memorandum is not cumulative of Walker’s
grand jury testimony. The FBI memorandum indicates Walker was so
unsure of his memory that he suggested hypnotism to “truly recall”
the events antecedent to Cox’s beating. By contrast, Walker’s
grand jury testimony indicates he was “sure” of his testimony
regarding the events antecedent to Cox’s beating. The grand jury
transcripts indicate Walker embellished before the IAD because he
wished he could have seen more, but the transcripts do not indicate
that Walker could not remember what he did testify to seeing during
the chase. Walker’s grand jury transcripts thus provided
Petitioner, at most, with the opportunity to impeach Walker based
upon his prior inconsistent statement and bias. The transcripts
did not, however, provide Petitioner with any basis to impeach
Walker’s ability to recall, an entirely different form of
impeachment.6 See Dumas, 207 F.3d at 16; Conley VI, 332 F. Supp.
2d at 318. We therefore reject the Government’s argument because
suppressed impeachment evidence “can be immaterial because of its
cumulative nature only if the witness was already [or could have
been] impeached at trial by the same kind of evidence.” Cuffie, 80
9-10.
6
The dissent claims that we have adopted a “new Brady rule”
based upon an argument first appearing in the district court’s
opinion. See dissent op. at 10-11. As the dissent implicitly
acknowledges, however, Petitioner argued the distinction between
impeachment based on ability to recall and bias in his “opening
brief” after remand in Conley V. As a result, waiver is not an
issue in this case.
-20-
F.3d at 518 (emphasis added); United States v. O’Conner, 64 F.3d
355, 359 (8th Cir. 1995).
Second, the Government argues Petitioner would not have
used the FBI memorandum at trial even if it had been properly
disclosed. Specifically, the Government postulates Petitioner
needed to embrace Walker’s testimony to prove he arrested Brown,
thereby distancing himself from Cox’s beating for purposes of
defending against the perjury charge in count II. This argument
fails because its premise is flawed. Petitioner did not need to
embrace Walker’s testimony to establish he arrested Brown.
Petitioner presented uncontroverted evidence at trial that he
arrested Brown. Furthermore, the Government never disputed that
Petitioner arrested Brown. Instead, the Government took the exact
opposite approach. The prosecutor told the jury in opening that
“there is no dispute in this trial that the [Petitioner] did chase
Brown eventually and he eventually caught up with him and he
arrested him[.]” The Government reiterated its point in closing:
“[Petitioner] tells you, and the evidence is not disputed, he
chase[d] a suspect from a shooting several hundred yards, he
captures him at gun point, [and] he handcuffs him[.]” Further, as
the district court explained, Petitioner could have impeached
Walker’s ability to recall what happened during the rapidly
evolving situation preceding Cox’s beating while simultaneously
-21-
embracing Walker’s testimony during the naturally less chaotic
events after Brown’s arrest. Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 318.
We also reject the Government’s related argument that
Petitioner would not have used the FBI memorandum to impeach
Walker’s ability to recall because he made a strategic decision not
to use Walker’s grand jury transcripts at trial. The reasons for
not impeaching Walker with the grand jury transcripts are palpable
from the record. Impeaching Walker with his prior inconsistent
statement about observing another officer behind Cox would have
permitted the Government to rehabilitate Walker on redirect with
his prior consistent statement, also made under oath before the
grand jury, that he did not see another officer behind Cox. See
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); see also Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at
315 (explaining Petitioner “could well have impeached Walker with
his known instances of improper embellishment, but would inevitably
have faced the [G]overnment riposte that Walker had laudably given
complete testimony and ought be considered credible because he had
included the details favorable to [Petitioner].”). At the same
time, such questioning would have opened the door for the
Government to address Walker’s motive for making the inconsistent
statement, namely, his sympathy for Cox. Therefore, impeaching
Walker with the grand jury transcripts would have harmed more than
helped Petitioner’s cause. We do not ignore these realities of
trial when engaged in a Brady analysis. Cf. Cunan, 152 F.3d at 35.
-22-
Third, the Government argues the FBI memorandum, even if
disclosed and used at trial, is still immaterial under Brady
because “Brown’s and Cox’s testimony provided sufficient evidence
for the jury to convict [Petitioner], even without Walker’s
testimony.”7 Supreme Court and Circuit precedent clearly foreclose
this argument. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434; McCambridge, 303 F.3d at
37. The question is not whether Petitioner would more likely than
not have received a different verdict with the FBI memorandum, but
whether in the memorandum’s absence he received a fair trial,
understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.
Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434. We answer no after careful review of the
record.
III.
We do not take our task in this case lightly. Ordering
a new trial is a drastic remedy that exacts substantial costs on
the administration of justice and taxpayers. Those costs are
justified, however, “where serious doubts about the reliability of
7
The Government also asserts that “pointing out Walker’s
inconsistent statements about whether someone was behind Cox would
not have directly undermined Walker’s testimony that he saw Cox
pursuing Brown; Walker never deviated on this point.” This is
true, but not true enough. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 443 n.14. The
inconsistencies between the two bodies of testimony “provided
opportunities for chipping away on cross-examination but not for
the assault that was warranted.” Id. The Government also misses
the point. Walker’s entire testimony – even that from which he
never deviated – could be called into question if Petitioner
impeached his ability to recall the events preceding Cox’s beating.
The issue was Walker’s credibility, not whether he actually saw
someone behind Cox.
-23-
a trial infested with constitutional error exist.” Bartholomew,
516 U.S. at 8. The district court’s order granting Petitioner’s
motion to set aside his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
therefore
AFFIRMED.
-- Dissent follows. --
-24-
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge (Dissenting). The suggestion
that there are serious doubts about the reliability of Petitioner
Conley's trial because his trial was "infested with constitutional
error," maj. op. at 22 (emphasis added), is hyperbole that cannot
remain unanswered. It is not to quibble about words, however, that
I am forced to dissent. I simply cannot agree that Conley's trial,
which resulted in a conviction affirmed by this court on direct
appeal, United States v. Conley, 186 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1999), cert.
denied, 529 U.S. 1017 (2000) (Conley I), is unworthy of confidence
by reason of the Government's failure to disclose the April 9, 1997
FBI Memorandum of an interview with Police Officer Richard Walker.
Although I commend the thankless efforts of the district
judge in having to plow through the record of this case as required
by the instructions of the en banc court, Conley v. United States,
323 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2003) (en banc) (Conley V), and further
compliment his outstanding professional diligence, I do not believe
his conclusions are entitled to any particular deference on appeal.
The matter before us is, after all is said and done, strictly a
question of law which we are required to review de novo. Moreno-
Morales v. United States, 334 F.3d 140, 145-48 (1st Cir. 2003)
(reviewing de novo Brady materiality claims stemming from a § 2255
petition). Again, with due respect to the district judge who was
put in the unenviable position of having to review a cold record of
a case which was not tried before him, he was in no better position
-25-
than we are to determine the lone issue before us: whether the
Government's failure to produce "the FBI memorandum, viewed in the
context of the entire record, undermines confidence in the outcome
of Petitioner's trial," maj. op. at 14 (emphasis added). Cf.
Conley V, 323 F.3d at 16-18 (Bownes, J., dissenting), 23
(Torruella, J., dissenting).
I respectfully but firmly disagree with the result
reached by the district court, affirmed by the majority, that the
Government's failure to disclose the FBI Memorandum undermines
confidence in the jury's verdict of guilty. On the contrary, I
believe that there is no reasonable probability that had the FBI
Memorandum been produced, a verdict absolving Petitioner would have
resulted. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999). More on
point, I am unable to conclude that there is "a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the [verdict]," United States
v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985) (citation omitted), reached
more than eight years ago by a jury of Conley's peers. I am much
afraid that the undermining that comes to mind is the negative
perception likely to arise from the litany of maneuvers that have
taken place in this case to overturn what was a just and
constitutionally sound verdict.
The following is what was established, in the context of
the whole record,8 beyond a reasonable doubt. On January 25, 1995,
8
I will only recount the minimum relevant facts.
-26-
following a shooting in the early morning hours in Boston in which
it was believed a police officer had been shot, there ensued a
police chase of several African-American suspects in a Lexus,
eventually trapping the vehicle in a dead-end street. The first
police car to arrive behind the cornered Lexus was an unmarked
police car with two persons on board: one, an African-American
police officer in plainclothes, Michael Cox, was wearing jeans, a
black hooded sweatshirt, and a black down jacket; the other,
Charles Bullard, a civilian security officer from the scene of the
shooting.
Cox, the first out of the unmarked police vehicle,
proceeded immediately to chase Robert Brown, who had exited the
Lexus and was fleeing towards a fence to the right of that
automobile. At the trial, Cox testified that he was "right behind"
Brown and caught up with him as the latter was climbing over the
fence. Trial Tr. I at 76-77; Trial Tr. II at 30-31. Although Cox
attempted to grab Brown's jacket, the suspect shook loose and
landed on the other side of the fence. Trial Tr. I at 78; Trial
Tr. II at 3-4. Brown testified that he saw a black man wearing a
black hood running after him as he ran toward the fence, and that
he felt someone touch his foot as he attempted to scale the fence,
id. at 94, 96. In his haste to escape in the dark, Brown hit a
tree, splitting a tooth in the process. Id. at 97.
-27-
As Brown got up to run away, he looked back and saw a
black man trying to climb over the fence, id., at which point that
person was struck from behind with a blunt object by police
officers who had just arrived. Id. at 98-101. Once Cox was on the
ground, these officers beat and kicked Cox repeatedly in the head,
back, face, and mouth. Someone then shouted "stop, he's a cop,"
and the officers quickly dispersed. No one came to Cox's aid.
Thus commenced the "blue wall of silence" that leads to this case.
Brown testified at trial that before the assaulters
disappeared, and while Cox was being hammered, he made eye contact
with a tall white police officer who was standing next to the
officers beating the man in the hood. Id. at 102. Thereafter,
Brown attempted to escape, running almost a mile before he was
physically captured by this same tall white officer, who turned out
to be Petitioner Conley. Id. at 103-04, 239-41. During the course
of the foot chase, Conley had dropped his radio, which was
recovered by Police Officer Walker and was handed personally to
Conley, as Walker had run behind Conley after Brown. Id. at 36-37.
The above evidence was more than sufficient to sustain
the perjury and obstruction of justice counts which resulted from
Conley's grand jury testimony to the effect that (1) he chased
Brown to the fence, (2) he did not observe anyone between himself
and Brown, and (3) he pursued Brown over the fence. See Conley I,
186 F.3d at 7.
-28-
Up to this point, I have purposely omitted mention of
Walker's various versions of that night's events because although
sufficiency of the evidence is not, or theoretically, should not,
be the test, Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995),9 the fact
is that the Government's case was just as strong against Conley
irrespective of any alleged Brady flaws, which I do not believe
exist.
At trial, Walker, an African-American police officer,
testified that he arrived at the scene in a patrol car behind the
car of Cox, whom he knew. Walker saw Cox chase Brown "three feet
behind him," id. at 30-31, saw the latter go over the fence while
Cox tried to grab him, id. at 76, and observed Cox come back down
while Brown landed on the other side of the fence. He did not
testify to seeing anything further, including anyone beating Cox.
He did, however, testify that he handed Conley his lost radio after
helping Conley in Brown's chase, id. at 36-37, an important bonding
link with Conley, as we shall point out, which made his impeachment
by Conley unlikely.
9
This is a rule which has been subtly but effectively ignored
by both this Court, and more recently as a result of its
instructions, by the district court. See Conley v. United States,
332 F. Supp. 2d at 313 (Conley VI) ("Some a priori evaluation of
the verdict appears necessary, given the First Circuit's admonition
that'[t]he government's evidence at trial was assuredly adequate
for conviction, but . . . .'"); see also id. at 324 ("Holes in the
Trial Testimony").
-29-
Walker-related evidence, however, did not end here. The
Boston Police Department's Internal Affairs Division (IAD)
conducted its own investigation into this sordid affair, during the
course of which Walker had informed the IAD that he had observed a
police officer behind Cox, but could not identify him, an
observation which he later retracted. Moreover, during the course
of testifying before the same grand jury that questioned Conley,
Walker was asked to explain the prior inconsistencies in his
testimony before the IAD, a matter that will be covered in more
detail presently. Suffice it to say that for now, Walker's grand
jury testimony was in the defense's possession, and they chose not
to use it for strategic reasons.
The majority's affirmance of the district court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, which action is based solely
on the Government's failure to produce in the FBI Memorandum,10 is
flawed because of the following reasons: (1) this document is
cumulative of Walker's grand jury testimony which Conley possessed
before trial, but refrained from using for strategic purposes,
United States v. García-Torres, 341 F.3d 61, 70 (1st Cir. 2003)
("[I]mpeachment evidence that is merely cumulative . . . is
insufficient to establish prejudice under Brady") (internal
quotation and quotation marks omitted); Moreno-Morales, 334 F.3d at
10
"[W]ere it not for the FBI memorandum, this Court would have
denied the writ, even considering the variety of undisclosed items
taken together." Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 324.
-30-
148 (same); and (2) it is well-established that nondisclosure fails
to warrant a new trial under Brady because Walker's testimony was
substantially corroborated by both Cox and Brown. Strickler, 527
U.S. at 293-94 (failure to disclose impeachment evidence does not
contravene Brady where other witnesses provide corroborating
evidence in support of conviction); García-Torres, 341 F.3d at 71(same).
I
To conclude that the possible impeachment value of the
FBI Memorandum is cumulative of Walker's grand jury testimony, one
need only place them side by side and read their contents:
-31-
Grand Jury Testimony FBI Memorandum
April 1997
April 9, 1997
Q: [D]id you see anyone behind
Officer Cox as he was going
through the fence?
A: No, I didn't. According to WALKER, he saw
Q: So, why did you say that you victim and suspect running to
did to Internal Affairs? fence and saw suspect get over
A: At the time of the interview the fence. He now states that
with Internal Affairs . . . I he did not see anyone running
started feeling guilty, like I behind victim. He only saw
should have seen more than what victim COX behind suspect.
really happened. Okay? I sat During Internal Affairs
there, and I'm conjuring up interview and Suffolk County
pictures of what he was asking GJ, WALKER stated that he saw
me and what I should have seen. someone behind Victim but could
Like I said, I felt guilty not not identify this person or
seeing more than what I saw and give a description of the
should have, but my attention individual other than to say it
was focused on chasing this guy was a police officer. During
towards the fence. Okay? [the pre-grand jury interview he
IAD officer] asked the states that he did not see
question,"Did I see anyone," or anyone but felt compelled
whatever the question was, and during the IAD interview to say
I was sitting there saying that he saw something. He felt this
from where I was, maybe I way because he knows victim and
should have seen someone, and likes victim he felt bad that
told him, "Yes, I did." That's he could not say what happened
the reason for my answer. and therefore convinced himself
Q: And why were you feeling that he actually saw someone or
guilty? something. But since that
A: Like I said, I should have interview he has convinced
seen, things are happening himself that he did not
directly in front of you, and actually see anyone behind
you're sitting there saying, victim or anyone hit victim.
there are four people in this WALKER also suggested that
room, but I only saw two. It perhaps if he was hypnotised
shouldn't be that way. I [sic] he might truly recall
should have seen all four what was going on versus what
people. It was right in front he indicates was tunnel vision.
of me.
During the pre-FGJ interview,
Tr. Vol. II at 235-36. WALKER indicated he would be
willing to take a polygraph to
clear up this discrepancy.
-32-
Walker's grand jury testimony contained all the
information Conley needed to thoroughly impeach Walker's
credibility as a witness: (1) he admitted to having given false
information to the IAD about seeing someone behind Cox at the
fence, while "now" he was saying he had not seen anyone; (2) he
explained that he did this because he was feeling "guilty at not
seeing more than what he saw and should have;" and (3) by stating
that he "should have seen things happening directly in front" of
him, but did not, he was at a minimum indicating his poor qualities
as a witness.
The FBI Memorandum adds little to this information. As
in (1), above, Walker admitted to having told IAD that he saw
someone behind Brown, but since then convinced himself "that he did
not see anyone running behind [Cox]. He only saw . . . Cox behind
[Brown]." Similarly, as in (2), above, Walker explained this
discrepancy because he "felt compelled during the IAD to say he saw
something . . . because he knows [Cox] and likes [him] . . . [and
thus] felt bad that he could not say what happened."
Thus, the essential ammunition needed by Conley to attack
Walker's credibility as a prosecution witness was practically
identical in both his grand jury testimony and the FBI Memorandum
summarizing his statement to that agency.
We are thus left with two pieces of information contained
in the FBI Memorandum that were not previously known: (1) Walker's
-33-
cryptic hypnotism statement; and (2) his willingness to submit to
a polygraph test. These evidence are at best de minimis when
compared with the powerful evidence in Conley's hands which showed
that Walker had changed his testimony, not on a collateral,
insubstantial issue, but on a critical question that went to the
heart of the Government's case against Conley: his presence or
absence from the scene of the assault against Cox.
The fact of the matter is that Conley's defense chose not
to impeach Walker with his prior inconsistent statements, and for
good reason. Conley needed Walker's trial testimony to the effect
that he had seen a police officer at the bottom of the hill who fit
Conley's description, thus placing Conley elsewhere than at the
scene of Cox's beating. This was not just a question of passively
failing to cross-examine Walker regarding his changes of heart.
Conley's defense actually objected to the Government's attempt to
introduce Walker's prior inconsistent statement, see Trial Tr. II
at 51-52, and vigorously relied on his credibility in an attempt to
establish by circumstantial evidence during his cross-examination
(through evidence of the dropped and recovered radio), as well as
during closing arguments, that Conley was the officer Walker saw at
the bottom of the hill.
An argument first appearing in the district court's
opinion, Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 316, adopted by the
majority, maj. op. at 17, articulates a new Brady rule regarding
-34-
distinctions between the kind of impeachment evidence provided by
the FBI Memorandum (Walker's recall ability) versus that in his
grand jury testimony (Walker's bias towards Cox). It is an
argument never made by Conley's attorneys throughout the catalogue
of initial actions and appeals in this case, from the trial through
the initial habeas corpus proceedings, and which no amount of
judicial voyeurism should be able resurrect. See, e.g., Playboy
Enters. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 906 F.2d 25, 40 (1st Cir.), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 959 (1990) ("An appellant waives any issue which
it does not adequately raise in its initial brief"); United States
v. Benavente Gómez, 921 F.2d 378, 386 (1st Cir. 1990) (arguments
not raised in opening appellate brief are waived); KPS & Assocs.,
Inc. v. Designs By FMC, Inc., 318 F.3d 1, 25 (1st Cir. 2003)
(same).
Furthermore, the "ability to recall" versus "bias"
distinction is one that fails to have any relevance to the facts of
this appeal. Before the grand jury, Walker stated that "[he]
should have seen" what was happening directly in front of him.
What is that if not excellent material with which to attack a
witness's ability to recall or perceive what took place at the
fence that fateful night? I simply cannot agree with the majority
that the grand jury "transcripts did not . . . provide Petitioner
with any basis to impeach Walker's ability to recall." Maj. op. at
19. The grand jury testimony, like the FBI memorandum, mentions
-35-
that contrary to Walker's prior statements, he now believes that he
did not see anyone running behind Brown, which pertains to Walker's
ability to recall.11 Yet, as explained, Conley's defense simply had
no desire to take this counterproductive attack against Walker:
Conley needed Walker's testimony about seeing a person resembling
Conley at the bottom of the hill to show that Conley did not see
the officers beat Cox, thereby rebutting allegations that he
committed perjury in testifying that he had not seen the beating
(Count 2).
It defies all logic to now claim that it was in Conley's
interest to impeach Walker with the information in the FBI
Memorandum, most of which he already possessed. Conley knew the
following: (1) Walker and Cox were friends; (2) Walker felt guilty
11
The cases cited by the majority for the proposition that
"suppressed impeachment evidence 'can be immaterial because of its
cumulative nature only if the witness was already [or could have
been] impeached at trial by the same kind of evidence,'" maj. op.
at 19 (citing United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir.
1996); United States v. O'Conner, 64 F.3d 355, 359 (8th Cir.
1995)), are inapposite. In Cuffie, the Court, immediately prior to
citing this proposition, stated that "we must look not to the ways
defense counsel was able to impeach [the witness], but to the ways
in which the witness' testimony was allowed to stand unchallenged."
80 F.3d at 518 (citations omitted). The Court reasoned that
although the witness was impeached on other grounds, "[n]one of the
impeachment that defense counsel conducted . . . related to
perjury[,] . . . an infirmity in [the witness'] testimony that is
almost unique in its detrimental effect on a witness' credibility."
Id. Here, Conley's defense self-servingly chose not to impeach
Walker's credibility with his ability to recall, although Conley
could have certainly done so: both the grand jury testimony and
FBI memorandum, for example, raise doubts on Walker's ability to
recall because contrary to his prior statements, he now believes
that he did not see anyone running behind Brown.
-36-
about not seeing more; (3) this guilt led to Walker making prior
inconsistent statements; and (4) Walker believed that an "Officer
Ryan," rather than Conley, was the officer who arrested Brown
(another important memory lapse, but one which Conley did not wish
to challenge).
I cannot conceive how any court can conclude that the
failure to produce the FBI Memorandum undermines confidence in the
outcome of Conley's trial. The facts in this case pale when
compared with, for example, those in Moreno-Morales, 334 F.3d at
140. In that case, in which Brady relief was denied, we held that
confidence in the outcome of the trial was not undermined
notwithstanding the prosecutor's failure to reveal thirteen
polygraph examinations by a key government witness who recanted in
his testimony. Id. at 145-48. We reasoned that because the
inconsistencies had been known by the defense through grand jury
transcripts which it possessed yet chose not to use -- a situation
almost identical to the present one -- the uncovered evidence
"would have been merely cumulative, and 'the unavailability of
cumulative evidence does not deprive the defendant of due process'"
under Brady. Id. at 147-48 (citing United States v. Sánchez, 917
F.2d 607, 618 (1st Cir. 1990); Zeigler v. Callahan, 659 F.2d 254,
266 (1st Cir. 1981)). Similarly, in United States v. Sepúlveda, 15
F.3d 1216 (1st Cir. 1993), we found that although the withheld
evidence of a "government deal" would have discredited a government
-37-
witness and was therefore "potentially useful to the defense," id.
at 1220, we nonetheless held that it was "not enough" to undermine
confidence in the outcome since "all the material for making that
assessment was available to the jury, and the new information . . .
added very little," id. at 1221. See also United States v. García-
Torres, 341 F.3d 61 (finding that although a withheld evidence
would have undermined a witness's credibility, it had "weak
evidentiary value" and "substantial other evidence" supported the
verdict and thus failed to undermine confidence in the verdict).
Given our circuit precedent, I simply fail to see how the withheld
evidence in this case, given its cumulative nature and weak
evidentiary value, should at all undermine our confidence in the
verdict.
II
Equally important for Brady purposes, Walker's testimony
is fully corroborated by valid, interlocking evidence, which makes
the alleged Brady violation harmless. See Strickler, 527 U.S. at
293-94; García-Torres, 341 F.3d at 77.
As has been previously outlined, both Cox and Brown
provided ample corroborating evidence at trial concerning the
timing of Cox's pursuit of Brown at the fence, directly
contradicting Conley's grand jury testimony. The testimonies of
Cox and Brown not only complement of each other, but they are in
critical agreement with Walker's core testimony describing Cox's
-38-
chase of Brown to the fence. Cox testified that he was right
behind Brown as he pursued Brown to the fence, Trial Tr. I at 77-
78, that there was no one between him and Brown when Brown reached
the fence and climbed it, id. at 85, 88, and that he tried
unsuccessfully to pull Brown down from the fence, id. at 129-130;
Trial Tr. II at 14. Substantially equally, Brown testified that a
black man wearing black clothing (a description matching Cox that
night) ran after him as he was running toward the fence, id. at 94,
and that he felt someone touch his foot as he was scaling the
fence, id. at 95-96, 125. Walker's testimony duplicates Cox's and
Brown's accounts: he saw Cox "three feet behind" a black male
suspect, who climbed the fence while Cox reached for him. Id. at
30-31, 76. On this, Conley stated to the grand jury:
Q: Did you see anyone else in plain clothes
behind [Brown] as he went towards the fence?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did you see, as he went on top of the fence
or climbed the fence, another individual in
plain clothes standing there, trying to grab
him?
A: No, I did not.
Q: --as he went over the fence?
A. No, I did not.
Q: So that didn't happen; is that correct?
Because you saw the individual [Brown] go over
the fence?
A: Yes, I seen [sic] go over the fence.
Q: And if these other things that I've been
describing, a second - another plainclothes
officer chasing [Brown], and actually grabbing
him as he went to the top of the fence, you
would have seen that if it had happened; is
that your testimony?
A: I think I would have seen that.
-39-
Trial Tr. II at 235-36.
With all due respect to my various colleagues on both the
district and appellate courts, who studiously and repeatedly have
had to read through the evidence in this case, they need not have
gone any further than the above to have reached the conclusion
which is self evident: there was ample, credible, corroborating
evidence with which to sustain Conley's flagrant perjury and
obstruction of justice.
Although I have previously raised this concern, see
Conley V, 323 F.3d at 25 n.14 (Torruella J., dissenting), I cannot
close this dissent without commenting on the unjustified
denigration of the Government's case by reason of its reliance on
circumstantial evidence. Cf. United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1,
8 (1st Cir. 1998) ("circumstantial evidence, if it meets all the
other criteria of admissibility, is just as appropriate as direct
evidence and is entitled to be given whatever weight the jury deems
it should be given); United States v. Hughes, 211 F.3d 676, 681
(1st Cir. 2000) (same). This unfortunate trend was initially
commenced by the en banc court, id. at 16, was predictably
continued by the district court, Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 324,
and has ultimately been crowned by the majority in this opinion,
maj. op. at 15-16, whose blistering attack on Cox, Walker, and
Brown would almost lead me to conclude that Cox assaulted himself
were it not that I also have some knowledge of the evidence in this
-40-
case. Despite repeated attempts during cross-examination to
challenge Cox's ability to recall the events of the night in
question, Trial Tr. I at 102-03, 107-09, 117-25, 129, as well as
Brown's credibility, Trial Tr. II at 130, 145-54, the jury
convicted Conley of perjury and obstruction of justice. Of course,
Conley wisely chose not to cross-examine Walker in the manner that
he did Cox and Brown despite having all the ammunition that he
needed to do so. Lastly, a point that has been consistently
downplayed, if not outright overlooked, by my colleagues, Brown's
testimony placing Conley at the fence while Cox was being beaten is
anything but circumstantial evidence, a point conceded in
Petitioner's brief, Brief for Petitioner at 6 n.4, although it is
allegedly discounted because of Conley's acquittal on Count 2.12
What is apparently neglected by this contention is that Conley's
presence at the fence is also relevant to placing in context his
perjured testimony to the effect that there was no one other than
himself at the fence.
12
I cannot agree with the majority's assertion that Conley's
acquittal on Count 2 (i.e., for testifying that he did not observe
anyone beating Cox), ostensibly means that the jury rejected
Brown's testimony altogether and that Walker was the center of the
government's case. Maj. op. at 13. It could very well mean that
the jury did not credit that part of Brown's testimony in which he
said he saw Conley watch the beating of Cox -- a part of Brown's
testimony that was neither corroborated by Cox nor Walker. The
rest of Brown's testimony, however, was corroborated by both Cox
and Walker.
-41-
The circumstantial evidence argument is a red herring
that obfuscates the fact that Brady analysis does not allow for a
retrial of the case under the guise of a § 2255 proceeding, as the
majority in effect does. See also Conley VI, 332 F. Supp. 2d at
324. This Court, in affirming Conley's conviction on direct
appeal, deemed the circumstantial evidence sufficient. Conley I,
186 F.3d at 7. Nor did we find Walker's testimony to be the
"linchpin" that Conley, and the majority, now makes it out to be.
Maj. op. at 16. Because Cox and Brown were describing what
actually happened to them at the fence, as opposed to Walker's
eyewitness account of the events, the testimonies of Cox and Brown
were just as crucial as Walker's. More importantly, the time for
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is long past. Kyles,
514 U.S. at 434 (determining materiality under Brady is "not a
sufficiency of evidence test").
As Judge Bownes stated in his cogent dissent, in language
familiar to those who have charged juries on a regular basis,
"[C]ircumstantial evidence is just as reliable as testimony and at
times, more reliable because it does not depend on the memory or
judgment of what a witness saw and remembered and it is not subject
to the biases and prejudices that are part of all human beings."
Conley V, 323 F.3d at 18 (Bownes, J., dissenting). I suspect that
this new "Conley rule" of circumstantial evidence will be a
bounteous field for the myriad of defendants who up to now have
-42-
been charged and successfully convicted as a matter of course on
such evidence.
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.
-43-