In U.S. v. Perez, No. 05-12971 (Dec. 28, 2006), the Court rejected the argument that a Brady violation occurred when the government failed to disclose to the defendant that it had promised to reduce his wife’s sentence in exchange for her testimony against him. The Court noted that Perez was aware of the reasons his wife testified at trial.
The Court also rejected the argument that Perez should have been given a continuance before trial in order to have more time to examine recordings that were disclosed five days before trial. The Court said that counsel was able to spend 20 hours reviewing the recordings which was sufficient time for him to notice any helpful statements for the defense.
The Court agreed with Perez that the district court in allowing a pre-trial services officer to testify for the prosecution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(3), which requires materials disclosed to this officer to remain confidential. Such information cannot be admitted at trial if it goes "to the issue of guilt." Here, the government called the officer to establish Perez’ cell phone number, and his involvement in illegal drug transactions. However, the Court found no "plain error" because other evidence properly admitted at trial independently established Perez’ cell phone number.
