United States v. Lizbeth Gutierrez

Good Law
616 F. App'x 333
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 17, 201514-50383California432 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Lizbeth Gutierrez appeals her conviction for importing methamphetamine and the district court’s denial of her post trial motions for an acquittal or new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The government’s disclosure of impeachment evidence regarding its expert witness Goldberg did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Although the evidence was not disclosed until trial, Gutierrez was able to impeach Goldberg during cross-examination, highlight the evidence in her closing argument and recall Goldberg for further cross-examination. See United States v. Vgeri, 51 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir.1995) (holding the disclosure of evidence during trial did not violate Brady because the defendant could — and did — use the evidence on cross-examination); United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir.1988) (holding the disclosure of documents during trial did not violate Brady , in part, because the defendant could “recall [the relevant witness] and reexamine him about the documents”). Gutierrez has not persuasively shown any prejudice from the late disclosure.

2. The district court did not err in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.