S.D.N.Y.: Brady, a snitch’s new information, and suppression motions

In this case, a codefendant decided to roll, and he finally provided information to the government. He was not a government investigator, and what he subsequently told the government in its debriefing about how the searches went down didn’t really help the defendants enough to satisfy Brady’s prejudice prong, even if the government was chargeable with that knowledge. In fact, considering it for all that its worth, it doesn’t even change the outcome. United States v. Barcelo, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113906 (S.D. N.Y. August 15, 2014).

Defendant’s motion to reconsider the denial of motion to suppress without a hearing doesn’t allege anything that suggests that the court was wrong in the first place or that a hearing was even required. What are the disputed material facts? None. United States v. Wilson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113638 (D. Ariz. August 15, 2014).*

Plaintiffs in this § 1983 case ran a pawn shop where police believed they were fencing stolen goods. With the cooperation of Home Depot, expensive stuff was sold there for little or nothing [which proves nothing; it is, after all a pawn shop]. They were charged with these “controlled sales” but ultimately the local DA declined prosecution. So they sued the police involved. There was at least some probable cause there, and that’s enough to defeat the 1983 claim. Also, after the initial controlled sales, other stolen property showed up there, and that was a valid inference the police could rely on. [See Treatise § 43.11 on pawnshops as regulated businesses and why.] Young v. Owens, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15768, 2014 FED App. 0634N (6th Cir. August 15, 2014).*