U.S. v. King

In prosecution on drug, firearm and racketeering conspiracy charges arising out of defendants’ gang-related activities, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that prosecutor’s post-trial disclosure of statement from confidential informant indicating there was in-fighting among members of defendant’s gang did not violate disclosure requirements of Brady, 373 U.S. 83, where Dist. Ct. could properly find that said statement was not material. While defendants argued that said statement was material because said statement precluded finding that conspiracy existed among gang members, Dist. Ct. previously rejected defendants’ argument that infighting among gang members was inconsistent with existence of conspiracy, where record showed that: (1) defendants’ gang acted as unit despite changes in membership and leadership; and (2) gang had sustained hierarchy that persisted over 10-year period. Moreover, instant statement was cumulative to what Dist. Ct. had learned during instant bench trial. Also, one defendant failed to establish any error under Bruton, 391 U.S. 1231, with respect to admission of statement from non-testifying individual, who implicated himself and said defendant in charged offenses, since: (1) rule in Bruton does not apply to bench trials where Dist. Ct. can disregard any prejudicial portions of statement; and (2) Dist. Ct. did not otherwise convict said defendant based on said statement.