United States v. Rachel Alaffa Jernigan

451 F.3d 1027 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rachel Alaffa JERNIGAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-10086. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 7, 2005. Filed June 26, 2006. John R. Hannah and Thomas M. Hoidal, Hoidal & Hannah, Phoenix, AZ, for the defendant-appellant. Michael T. Morrissey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-00-01010-EHC. Before BETTY B. FLETCHER, DAVID R. THOMPSON, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges. THOMPSON, Senior Circuit Judge. 1 Defendant Rachel Alaffa Jernigan appeals the district court's denial of her motion for a new trial. A jury convicted Jernigan on March 23, 2001, of having robbed a bank on September 20, 2000. After her conviction, Jernigan learned that someone with similar physical characteristics had robbed nearby banks in November of 2000 and December of 2001. 2 Based on this information, Jernigan filed a motion for a new trial in which she asserted that (1) the government violated her due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373…

Defendant Rachel Alaffa Jernigan appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial. A jury convicted Jernigan on March 23, 2001, of having robbed a bank on September 20, 2000. After her conviction, Jernigan learned that someone with similar physical characteristics had robbed nearby banks in November of 2000 and December of 2001.

Based on this information, Jernigan filed a motion for a new trial in which she asserted that (1) the government violated her due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose information prior to trial that was relevant to her defense, and (2) new evidence discovered after trial, when combined with the undisclosed pretrial evidence, mandates a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 33”).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial.

I. Background

A. September 20 Robbery and Conviction

The Bank of America branch at 15 E. Guadalupe Road in Gilbert, Arizona, was robbed on September 20, 2000. According to eyewitnesses, the robber was a short, Hispanic woman…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the majority’s holding regarding Rule 33 but respectfully dissent from its ruling under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

I

Jernigan was initially charged with three robberies — a September 20, 2000 robbery at 15 East Guadalupe in Gilbert; an October 11, 2000. robbery at 906 East Baseline Road in Tempe; and an October 25, 2000 robbery at 2298 North Alma School in Chandler. 1 After Jernigan was placed into custody, two more banks were robbed in close proximity to the 15 East Guadalupe branch, by a person matching Jernigan’s physical description — a short, Hispanic woman with acne. Those robberies took place on November 28, 2000 and November 30, 2000.

I find it highly unlikely that in a case like this, which turns 'exclusively and entirely upon eyewitness testimony, the jury would have convicted Jernigan had it known that robberies at nearby banks by a short Hispanic woman with acne continued after Jernigan’s arrest. But the prosecution never disclosed this information to Jernigan’s defense team and never bothered to investigate whether this second robber — not Jernigan — actually…