United States v. Bruce, No. 19-10289 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy, attempt to possess with intent to distribute heroin or marijuana, and bribery: public official accepting a bribe. Defendant's charges arose from his involvement in a drug smuggling scheme at the prison where he worked as a correctional officer.
The panel rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred by admitting testimony from another participant in the smuggling scheme who identified defendant from a Facebook photo. The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the government's identification evidence where the photo was not so suggestive that it rendered the identification unreliable. The panel also rejected defendant's contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the government violated the discovery obligations imposed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Although the panel agreed with defendant that at least some of the withheld evidence regarding another prison guard's alleged malfeasance was exculpatory, the panel concluded that it was not material within the meaning of Brady. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s orders admitting identification evidence and denying a motion for new trial in a case in which David Bruce was convicted of conspiracy, attempt to possess with intent to distribute heroin or marijuana, and bribery, arising from Bruce’s involvement in a drug smuggling scheme at the United States Penitentiary at Atwater, California, where Bruce worked as a correctional officer. The panel held that the district court reasonably concluded that the use of a Facebook photo during an identification procedure was not so suggestive that it rendered the witness’s identification unreliable. The panel held that the district court did not err by denying the motion for new trial in which Bruce argued that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to produce evidence indicating that Atwater officer Paul Hayes was a target of an investigation into a very similar smuggling ring at a different federal prison, that numerous inmate complaints had been made against Hayes prior to the Bruce investigation, and that Hayes pressured some inmates to offer evidence against Bruce. The panel held that the evidence was exculpatory within the meaning of Brady and at the very least the government was required to investigate it. Addressing Brady’s materiality requirement, the panel cited the weight UNITED STATES V. BRUCE 3 and force of the evidence against Bruce, and concluded that its confidence in the verdict was not undermined by the government’s failure to disclose the exculpatory evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.