Brown

MEMORANDUM ***

Maurice Brown maintains that he is entitled to a new trial for four reasons: (1) the government violated its disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (2) the cumulative impact of the district court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings was so prejudicial that his trial was fundamentally unfair; (3) the district court abused its discretion when it denied Brown’s motion for a mistrial; and (4) the *675 district court gave the jury two Allen charges.

1. a. The government presented the affidavit of the case agent that the agents on the Brown case did not know about Norvin Dizadare’s testimony in the trial against Watts, nor that the state court found Dizadare to be untruthful. We find no clear error by the district court in crediting the agents’ affidavits. We are not persuaded by Brown’s reliance on United States v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500 (D.C.Cir.1992). In Brooks , the court ruled that the duty to search was triggered because there was a link between the file and Brooks’s case, the file could be retrieved without difficulty because it had been identified by defense counsel, and the local police department was…