United States v. McCoy, 4th Cir. (2009)
United States v. McCoy, 4th Cir. (2009)
United States v. McCoy, 4th Cir. (2009)
No. 08-5110
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00208-GBL-1)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
The Defendant, Stanaus McCoy, appeals the district courts
denial of a motion to reopen a suppression hearing in light of
new evidence that he claims the Government withheld in violation
of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
I.
McCoy
intent
to
was
charged
distribute
with
crack
three
counts
cocaine,
of
possession
pursuant
to
21
with
U.S.C.
United States v.
meeting
places
for
drug
deals;
(3)
drug
dealers
McCoy
did;
(4)
the
officer
saw
McCoy
arrive
with
his
girlfriend at the parking lot and wait in his car for several
minutes;
(5)
the
officer
saw
McCoy
point
in
southerly
of
speed.
Id.
at
412-13.
One
panel
member
wrote
to
be
highly
reasonable-suspicion
suspicious
calculus.
and
Id.
concurring).
3
a
at
key
416
factor
in
the
(Wilson,
J.,
drugs.
The
tow-truck
driver
testified
that
rather
than
speed away from the parking lot, he merely eased on out the
road.
happened.
(J.A. 786.)
suppression
hearing
on
the
grounds
that
it
undermined
and
he
still
drove
away
to
elude
police.
The
officer,
indictment:
distribute
crack
three
cocaine
counts
and
of
one
possession
count
of
with
being
intent
convicted
to
We have
II.
A.
We review a district courts denial of a motion to reopen a
suppression hearing for abuse of discretion.
United States v.
Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 1999), revd on other
grounds, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
B.
To show that the district court abused its discretion when
it
refused
to
reopen
the
suppression
hearing,
McCoy
must
a defendant must show that the new evidence was (1) favorable to
him for exculpatory or impeachment purposes; (2) that it was
intentionally or unintentionally withheld by the Government; and
(3) that the evidence was material.
U.S. 263, 282 (1999); Moseley v. Branker, 550 F.3d 312, 318 (4th
Cir. 2008).
Assuming,
grand
jury
without
testimony
deciding,
was
both
that
the
favorable
tow-truck
and
drivers
withheld
under
Brady, McCoy failed to prove that the new evidence was material.
For new evidence to be material, a defendant must show that
there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been
disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would
5
Cir.
(evidence
1996)
of
victims
past
consensual,
sexual
virtuous
woman
not
material
to
determining
whether
1078
(4th
Cir.
1993)
(evidence
that
contradicted
witnesss testimony that she had seen the defendants car twice
was not material because whether the witness personally saw the
car
twice
was
not
relevant
to
the
courts
finding
probable
cause).
The
tow-truck
drivers
testimony
here
contradicts
an
whether
Nothing in any of
witnesses,
suppression
including
hearing.
McCoy
Defense
when
he
counsels
testified
argument
at
the
that
the
believe
an
individual
to
be
doing,
not
to
what
that
McCoy
cannot show that the new evidence contradicts the district court
and this Courts finding that he refused to stop.
III.
For the above reasons, the district court did not clearly
err
when
hearing.
it
denied
McCoys
motion
to
reopen
the
suppression