00-2495, 00-2701 U.S. v. Elem

Listen to this article

“In this case, the inconsistencies between Anderson’s grand jury testimony and his trial testimony do not undermine the legitimacy of the jury’s verdict for several reasons. First, the main purpose of Anderson’s testimony at trial was to identify Jennings and Elem as his accomplices. While Anderson may have mistaken minor details, nothing in Anderson’s grand jury testimony weakens his identification of Jennings and Elem. Second, the inconsistencies between Anderson’s grand jury testimony and his trial testimony would not have the effect that they must to state a viable Brady claim – that is, damaging Anderson’s credibility to such an extent that the jury would discredit his identification of Jennings and Elem. The government never concealed Anderson’s credibility, but rather directly impeached him by identifying prior felony convictions, prior bad acts, prior inconsistent statements, and bias and prejudice for his deal with the government. Why the jury would disbelieve Anderson after hearing that he gave inconsistent accounts regarding which defendant actually purchased sunglasses prior to one of the robberies is beyond comprehension.

“Faced with such trivial discrepancies, the district court held that the government’s failure to turn over Anderson’s grand jury testimony did not result in prejudice because it could have no conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Plunkett, J., Flaum, J.