United States v. Kevin Martin

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not err by-refusing to grant defendant Kevin Dewane Martin an evidentiary hearing or a new trial based on his claim of a due process violation under Brady v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The record belied any allegation that the prosecution suppressed evidence that could have been used to exculpate Martin or impeach prosecution witness Kristy Conrad. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). Martin’s “plead the 5th” text message to Conrad was facially incriminating, not exculpatory, and in any event the prosecutor immediately disclosed it to defense counsel. The prosecutor had no obligation to further investigate the text message conversation (if any) leading up to Martin’s “plead the 5th” message because the allegedly exculpatory information was in defense counsel’s possession. See Rhoades v. Henry, 598 F.3d 495, 502 (9th Cir.2010); Raley v. Ylst, 470 F.3d 792, 804 (9th Cir.2006). The government discharged its obligation to disclose all relevant facts to defense counsel, cf. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 625 (9th Cir.2000), and defense counsel had the…