Fernandez v. United States · ¶20

Fernandez asked the District Court to reconsider, alleging that the prosecution had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). He pressed that argument several times, first in a motion to vacate the verdict, then in a motion for new trial, and again in a motion for rehearing. According to Fernandez, the Government should have disclosed that another alleged co-conspirator, Luis Rivera, had denied driving the getaway car. To determine whether Rivera had in fact denied his involvement, the District Court reviewed the Government's notes from Rivera's interview; it concluded that they “d[id] not contain any relevant information.” United States v. Fernandez, 2014 WL 7180225, *1 (SDNY, Nov. 25, 2014). There was no evidence that Rivera had ever made such a statement, and it was not clear that it would have mattered to the jury if he had. Even so, the judge noted that he was “troubled”…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.