Background
In November 2024, a jury convicted Derrick Long of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The conviction relied heavily on the testimony of Jerome White, a confidential informant. Long moved for a new trial after the government disclosed that White had provided false testimony regarding controlled purchases in a separate federal case involving a defendant named Manning. Long argued this constituted newly discovered evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and a Brady violation.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the claim for plain error because it was raised for the first time on appeal. The court determined that while the undisclosed Manning evidence was not merely cumulative of the impeachment evidence presented at trial, it was not material. The court found that White’s testimony was strongly corroborated by video evidence, wiretap recordings, and testimony from other witnesses. Consequently, the court concluded there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that undisclosed impeachment evidence regarding an informant’s credibility in a separate case may not warrant a new trial if the original conviction is supported by substantial independent corroboration.