United States v. Karl Thompson, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

1. The government does not challenge the district court’s determination that it suppressed exculpatory material by failing to disclose its full knowledge of the opinions of its expert, Grant Fredericks. That failure, however, did not prejudice Karl Thompson under Brady v. Maryland, 873 U.S. 88 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), as Thompson has not shown that “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999).

Unlike the evidence at issue in United States v. Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172, 1184 (9th Cir.2013), the evidence here could not have been used to impeach the government’s expert at trial, since Fredericks did not testify. Further, the government’s pretrial disclosures put Thompson on notice of potentially favorable opinions in Freder-icks’ reports; Thompson was thus not deprived of the opportunity to develop a defense strategy that utilized those opinions. Finally, the non-disclosure did not impede Thompson’s ability to cross-examine the government’s witnesses. Almost all of Fredericks’…