Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UN
ITE
D S
TA
TE
S D
IST
RIC
T C
OU
RT
SOU
TH
ER
N D
IST
RIC
T O
F FL
OR
IDA
CA
SE N
O. 1
1-23
376-
CIV
-Len
ard
RU
BE
N C
AM
PA[F
ER
NA
ND
O G
ON
ZAL
EZ
],Pl
aint
iff,
v. UN
ITE
D S
TA
TE
S,D
efen
dant
/
UN
ITE
D S
TA
TE
S’ R
ESPO
NSE
IN O
PPO
SIT
ION
T
O R
UB
EN
CA
MPA
’SM
OT
ION
UN
DE
R 2
8 U
.S.C
. §22
55
TO
VA
CA
TE
, SE
T A
SID
E O
R C
OR
RE
CT
SEN
TE
NC
E
Thro
ugh
coun
sel,
Rub
en C
ampa
(“M
ovan
t C
ampa
”) h
as m
oved
to
vaca
te, s
et a
side
or
corr
ect
his
sent
ence
in
Cas
e N
o. 9
8-72
1-C
r-LE
NA
RD
(s)(
s), p
ursu
ant
to 2
8 U
.S.C
. §22
55. H
e
mak
es e
ssen
tially
two
clai
ms:
that
pay
men
ts to
loca
l jou
rnal
ists
from
the
Bro
adca
stin
gB
oard
of
Gov
erno
rs (
“BB
G”)
am
ount
to a
fat
al d
ue-p
roce
ss v
iola
tion;
and
that
his
sen
tenc
ing
guid
elin
e
was
w
rong
ly
enha
nced
by
tw
o-le
vels
for
obst
ruct
ion
of
just
ice
beca
use
of
inef
fect
ive
repr
esen
tatio
n by
his
atto
rney
.Bot
h cl
aim
s la
ck m
erit.
The
cla
im c
once
rnin
g jo
urna
lists
doe
sno
t
esta
blis
ha
due-
proc
ess
viol
atio
n, a
nd, i
n an
y ev
ent,
Mov
ant h
as s
how
n no
pre
judi
ce b
ased
on
that
cla
im a
nd c
anno
t ove
rcom
e th
e bi
ndin
gap
pella
te d
eter
min
atio
n th
at th
e tri
al c
ourt
ensu
red
sele
ctio
n of
a f
air
and
unbi
ased
jury
that
was
pro
perly
insu
late
d fr
om m
edia
acc
ount
s.It
also
esse
ntia
lly a
mou
nts
to a
cla
im o
f ne
wly
dis
cove
red
evid
ence
, w
hich
is
time-
barr
ed.
The
subs
tanc
e of
the
gui
delin
e-en
hanc
emen
t cl
aim
is n
ot c
ogni
zabl
e as
a §
2255
iss
ue, a
nd i
n an
y
even
t th
e gu
idel
ine-
enha
ncem
ent
was
pr
oper
, an
dM
ovan
t’s
coun
sel
prov
ided
ef
fect
ive
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 1
of 6
1
2
repr
esen
tatio
n on
the
sent
enci
ngis
sue
attri
alan
don
appe
al.M
ovan
t’sre
ques
t for
an
evid
entia
ry
hear
ing
is n
ot m
erite
d. T
he U
nite
d St
ates
resp
ectfu
lly su
bmits
that
the
Mot
ion
shou
ld b
e de
nied
.
Mov
ant C
ampa
1is
one
of
five
co-d
efen
dant
s co
nvic
ted
at tr
ial i
n C
ase
No.
98-
721-
Cr-
LEN
AR
D(s
)(s)
. All
five
have
file
d §2
255
mot
ions
. See
Ger
ardo
Her
nand
ez v
. Uni
ted
Stat
es,
Cas
e N
o. 1
0-21
957-
cv-L
ENA
RD
;Re
ne G
onza
lez
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, C
ase
No.
10-2
1975
-cv-
LEN
AR
D; A
nton
io G
uerr
ero
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, Cas
e N
o. 1
0-23
966-
cv-L
ENA
RD
;Ru
ben
Cam
pa
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, Cas
e N
o. 1
1-23
376-
cv-L
ENA
RD
. The
Uni
ted
Stat
es p
revi
ousl
y ha
s re
spon
ded
to th
e §2
255
mot
ions
of
co-d
efen
dant
s H
erna
ndez
, Gon
zale
z, a
nd G
uerr
ero,
eac
h of
whi
ch a
lso
rais
ed th
e cl
aim
abo
ut B
BG
pay
men
ts to
loca
l jou
rnal
ists
. The
Uni
ted
Stat
es to
day
is re
spon
ding
in s
epar
ate
but s
imila
r ple
adin
gsto
the
§225
5 m
otio
ns o
f Mov
ant C
ampa
in th
is c
ase
and
of c
o-
defe
ndan
t Lui
sM
edin
a(h
erea
fter “
Mov
ant M
edin
a”2
1Th
is M
ovan
t was
cha
rged
as “
John
Doe
No.
3, a
/k/a
Rub
en C
ampa
.” L
ater
he
clai
med
, thr
ough
co
unse
l, th
at h
is tr
ue n
ame
is F
erna
ndo
Gon
zale
z Ll
ort.
He
was
refe
rred
to a
s Cam
pa e
xten
sive
ly
in th
e pr
ocee
ding
s an
d in
the
leng
thy
opin
ions
of t
he C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls; w
e co
ntin
ue to
use
this
re
fere
nce.
)in
Cas
e N
o. 1
1-22
854-
cv-L
ENA
RD
.Due
to t
he c
lose
sim
ilarit
y of
the
§22
55 m
otio
nsof
Mov
ant
Cam
pa a
nd M
ovan
t M
edin
a–
each
mov
ant r
aise
sth
e sa
me
two
clai
ms,
and
sign
ifica
nt p
ortio
ns o
f the
ir br
iefs
are
ver
batim
the
sam
e
–th
e U
nite
d St
ates
will
mak
e th
e sa
me
resp
onse
to e
ach
of th
eir r
espe
ctiv
e m
otio
ns. T
hus,
from
this
poi
nt o
nwar
d, th
e U
nite
d St
ates
’ res
pons
es in
opp
ositi
on to
Mov
ant C
ampa
’s §
2255
mot
ion
in t
his
case
and
to
Mov
ant
Med
ina’
s §2
255
mot
ion
in C
ase
No.
11-
2285
4-cv
-LEN
AR
D a
re
2 .Thi
s M
ovan
t w
as c
harg
ed a
s “J
ohn
Doe
No.
2,
a/k/
a Lu
is M
edin
a II
I.” L
ater
he
clai
med
, th
roug
h co
unse
l, th
at h
is tr
ue n
ame
is R
amon
Lab
anin
o Sa
laza
r. H
e w
as r
efer
red
to a
s M
edin
a ex
tens
ivel
y in
the
proc
eedi
ngs
and
in th
e le
ngth
y op
inio
ns o
f the
Cou
rt of
App
eals
; we
cont
inue
to
use
this
refe
renc
e
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 2
of 6
1
3
iden
tical
, en
com
pass
ing
and
addr
essi
ng t
heM
ovan
ts’3
The
Cri
min
al P
roce
edin
gs
iden
tical
cla
ims,
and
also
not
ing
and
disc
ussi
ng a
ny in
divi
dual
var
ianc
es, i
n on
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
ana
lysi
s.
The
Mov
ants
wer
e ch
arge
d, w
ith 1
2ot
hers
, in
a se
cond
sup
erse
ding
ind
ictm
ent
in t
he
unde
rlyin
g cr
imin
al c
ase.
See
DE/
cr4
3“M
ovan
ts,”
as u
sed
in th
is p
lead
ing,
refe
rs to
Mov
ant M
edin
a an
d M
ovan
t Cam
pa c
olle
ctiv
ely.
224.
Fiv
e pl
ed g
uilty
; fou
r ha
ve n
ever
bee
n ar
rest
ed; a
nd
thes
e M
ovan
ts p
roce
eded
to a
sev
en-m
onth
jury
tria
l with
the
rem
aini
ng th
ree
defe
ndan
ts. A
ll
five
wer
eco
nvic
ted
at tr
ial o
n al
l cou
nts f
or w
hich
eac
h w
asch
arge
d. M
ovan
ts w
ere
conv
icte
das
follo
ws:
Bot
h M
ovan
ts o
n C
ount
One
(con
spira
cy to
act
as
an a
gent
of
a fo
reig
n go
vern
men
t –
the
Rep
ublic
of
Cub
a–
with
out
prio
r no
tific
atio
n to
the
Atto
rney
Gen
eral
as
requ
ired,
and
to
defr
aud
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es o
f and
con
cern
ing
gove
rnm
enta
l fun
ctio
ns a
nd ri
ghts
, in
viol
atio
n of
18
U.S
.C. §
371)
;Mov
ant M
edin
a on
Cou
nts
Two
(con
spira
cy to
com
mit
espi
onag
e, in
vio
latio
n of
18 U
.S.C
. §7
94(c
)),
Nin
e an
d El
even
(po
sses
sion
of
frau
dule
nt p
assp
ort,
in v
iola
tion
of 1
8
U.S
.C.
§154
6(a)
), Te
n (f
alse
sta
tem
ent
to o
btai
n pa
sspo
rt, i
n vi
olat
ion
of 1
8 U
.S.C
. §1
542)
,
Twel
ve (
poss
essi
on o
f fiv
e or
mor
e fa
lse
iden
tific
atio
n do
cum
ents
, in
vio
latio
n of
18
U.S
.C.
§102
8(a)
(3),
(b)(
2)(B
) and
(c)(
3)),
and
Four
teen
,Six
teen
, Tw
enty
-Fiv
e an
d Tw
enty
-Six
(act
ing,
and
caus
ing
anot
her t
o ac
t, as
an a
gent
of a
fore
ign
gove
rnm
ent –
the
Rep
ublic
of C
uba
–w
ithou
t
prio
r no
tific
atio
n to
the
Atto
rney
Gen
eral
as
requ
ired,
in
viol
atio
n of
18
U.S
.C.
§951
); an
d
Mov
ant C
ampa
on
Cou
nts
Seve
n(p
osse
ssio
n of
fra
udul
ent p
assp
ort,
in v
iola
tion
of 1
8 U
.S.C
.
§154
6(a)
), Ei
ght (
poss
essi
on o
f fiv
e or
mor
e fa
lse
iden
tific
atio
n do
cum
ents
, in
viol
atio
n of
18
U.S
.C. §
1028
(a)(
3), (
b)(2
)(B
) and
(c)(
3)),
Sixt
een
and
Seve
ntee
n (a
ctin
g, a
nd c
ausi
ng a
noth
er to
4“D
E/cr
” re
fers
to d
ocke
t ent
ries i
n th
e un
derly
ing
crim
inal
cas
e, N
o. 9
8-72
1-cr
-LEN
AR
D.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 3
of 6
1
4
act,
asan
age
nt o
f a
fore
ign
gove
rnm
ent –
the
Rep
ublic
of
Cub
a–
with
out p
rior
notif
icat
ion
to
the
Atto
rney
Gen
eral
as r
equi
red,
in v
iola
tion
of 1
8 U
.S.C
. §95
1).
Follo
win
g le
ngth
y ap
peal
s, M
ovan
ts’
conv
ictio
ns o
n al
l co
unts
wer
e af
firm
ed,
with
a
rem
and
for r
esen
tenc
ing.
See
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Cam
pa,4
19 F
.3d
1219
(11t
h C
ir.),
[“C
ampa
1”]
,
vaca
ted
429
F.3d
101
1 (1
1th
Cir.
200
5) (e
n ba
nc);
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Cam
pa,
459
F.3d
112
1 (1
1th
Cir.
200
6)(e
n ba
nc)
[“C
ampa
2”]
; U
nite
d St
ates
v.
Cam
pa,
529
F.3d
980
(11
th C
ir. 2
008)
[“C
ampa
3”]
, cer
t. de
nied
, 129
S.C
t. 27
90 (2
009)
.
Upo
n re
man
d,
the
trial
cour
t re
sent
ence
d M
ovan
t M
edin
ato
36
0m
onth
s to
tal
inca
rcer
atio
n, f
ollo
wed
by
five
year
s of
sup
ervi
sed
rele
ase.
DE/
cr17
84.
Mov
ant
Med
ina
appe
aled
his
rese
nten
cing
,see
DE/
cr 1
791,
but
then
mov
ed to
dis
mis
s th
e ap
peal
. The
Ele
vent
h
Circ
uit
dism
isse
d M
ovan
t M
edin
a’s
rese
nten
cing
app
eal
Aug
ust
18,
2010
,an
d is
sued
its
man
date
.Se
eD
E/cr
179
7.M
ovan
t M
edin
a th
erea
fter
timel
y fil
ed h
is §
2255
mot
ion,
see
28
U.S
.C. §
2255
(f).
Als
o on
rem
and,
the
trial
cou
rt re
sent
ence
d M
ovan
t Cam
pato
213
mon
thst
otal
inca
rcer
atio
n, f
ollo
wed
by
thre
e ye
ars
of s
uper
vise
d re
leas
e. D
E/cr
1780
.M
ovan
t C
ampa
appe
aled
his
rese
nten
cing
,see
DE/
cr 1
790,
but
then
mov
ed to
dis
mis
s th
e ap
peal
. The
Ele
vent
h
Circ
uit d
ism
isse
d M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
res
ente
ncin
g ap
peal
on
Sept
embe
r 17
, 201
0, a
nd is
sued
its
man
date
.Se
e D
E/cr
179
8.M
ovan
t C
ampa
ther
eafte
r tim
ely
filed
his
§22
55 m
otio
n,se
e 28
U.S
.C. §
2255
(f).
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 4
of 6
1
5
Arg
umen
t and
Mem
oran
dum
of L
aw
1.M
ovan
ts re
ceiv
ed a
fai
r tr
ial,
free
of
due-
proc
ess
viol
atio
ns, n
otw
ithsta
ndin
g th
eir
clai
m
that
som
e lo
cal j
ourn
alist
s rec
eive
d pa
ymen
ts fr
omth
e Br
oadc
astin
g Bo
ard
of G
over
nors
.5
Mov
ants
’ cla
im c
once
rnin
g pa
ymen
ts to
jour
nalis
ts fl
ows f
rom
an
artic
le p
ublis
hed
by th
e
Mia
mi
Her
ald
new
spap
er o
n Se
ptem
ber
8, 2
006.
Th
e ar
ticle
, w
hich
Mov
ants
ref
eren
ce,
see
DE/
LM 5
:31,
DE/
RC
1-2
:33,
6bu
t do
not
app
end,
7
5D
ue to
the
leng
th o
f dis
cuss
ion
of th
is is
sue,
it is
div
ided
topi
cally
, at t
hese
pag
e nu
mbe
rs:
repo
rted
that
10
sout
h Fl
orid
a jo
urna
lists
rece
ived
pay
men
t fr
om t
he U
.S.
gove
rnm
ent
to p
artic
ipat
e in
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
prog
ram
min
g ai
med
at C
uba.
From
this
, Mov
ants
con
ject
ure
that
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es g
over
nmen
t
A. P
roce
dura
l ove
rvie
w …
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
…..6
B. S
ubst
antiv
ely,
Mov
ant’s
cla
im fa
ils …
……
……
……
……
…...
8C
. Pro
cedu
ral i
ssue
s: “
Cau
se”
……
……
……
……
……
……
…...
15D
. Pro
cedu
ral i
ssue
s: P
reju
dice
……
……
……
……
……
……
….2
3E.
Cla
im o
f stru
ctur
al e
rror
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
....2
4F.
Bra
dy c
laim
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
…...
.27
i. Fi
rst B
rady
ele
men
t: su
ppre
ssio
n …
……
……
……
……
.28
ii. S
econ
d Br
ady
elem
ent:
favo
rabi
lity
to th
e de
fens
e …
…35
iii. T
hird
Bra
dy e
lem
ent:
mat
eria
lity
……
……
……
……
….3
5G
. Cla
im th
at c
ouns
el w
ere
rend
ered
inef
fect
ive
……
……
……
...38
H. C
laim
that
a n
ews a
rticl
e re
ache
d th
e ve
nire
……
……
……
….4
5
6“D
E/LM
” re
fers
to d
ocke
t ent
ries
in M
ovan
t Med
ina’
s §2
255
civi
l mat
ter,
Cas
e N
o. 1
1-22
854-
cv-L
ENA
RD
. “D
E/R
C”
refe
rs to
doc
ket e
ntrie
s in
Mov
ant C
ampa
’s §
2255
civ
il m
atte
r, C
ase
No.
11
-233
76-c
v-LE
NA
RD
.
Page
num
bers
as
cite
d in
this
Res
pons
e ar
e to
pag
e nu
mbe
rs a
ssig
ned
by th
e co
urt’s
CM
/EC
F sy
stem
, app
earin
g at
the
top
right
of e
ach
elec
troni
cally
file
d pa
ge.
7Th
e ar
ticle
can
be
foun
d at
ht
tps:
//ww
w.le
xis.c
om/re
sear
ch/re
triev
e?cc
=&pu
shm
e=1&
tmpF
BSe
l=se
l&to
tald
ocs=
&ta
gged
Do
cs=F
1%3A
81Z1
%3A
1F1%
3A&
togg
leV
alue
=&nu
mD
ocsC
hked
=11&
pref
FBSe
l=0&
delfo
rmat
=X
CIT
E&fp
Doc
s=&
fpN
odeI
d=&
fpC
iteR
eq=&
expN
ewLe
ad=i
d%3D
%22
expa
nded
New
Lead
%22
&br
and=
&de
dupe
Opt
ion=
0&T2
1=21
&T2
2=22
&T2
3=23
&T2
4=24
&_m
=bc6
2d47
e951
da14
e898
5063
4efb
9ba1
8&do
cnum
=24&
_fm
tstr=
FULL
&_s
tartd
oc=2
1&w
chp=
dGLz
Vzt
-zS
kAz&
_md5
=6cb
a6b6
2e73
8619
12f3
b287
9477
a0e0
c&fo
cBud
Term
s=B
YLI
NE%
28co
rral
%29
&fo
cBud
Sel=
sel.
A c
opy
is a
ppen
ded
here
to a
s Atta
chm
ent A
.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 5
of 6
1
6
soug
ht t
o co
-opt
the
jou
rnal
ists
’ no
n-M
arti
repo
rting
in
sout
h Fl
orid
a pu
blic
atio
ns a
bout
Mov
ants
’ca
se a
nd tr
ials
o as
to c
reat
e pr
opag
anda
aga
inst
them
in th
is v
enue
, am
ount
ing
to a
due-
proc
ess
viol
atio
n th
at r
equi
res
that
the
jud
gmen
t ag
ains
t th
em b
e va
cate
d.Su
bsta
ntiv
ely,
thei
r cla
im is
fact
ually
uns
ound
and
thei
r con
ject
ure
base
less
, illo
gica
l, an
d co
ntra
dict
ed b
y th
eir
own
refe
renc
ed m
ater
ials
, as
will
be
disc
usse
d be
low
. In
add
ition
, an
d la
rgel
y ig
nore
d by
Mov
ants
, the
ir cl
aim
is p
roce
dura
lly u
nsou
nd, b
arre
d on
sev
eral
inde
pend
ent p
roce
dura
l bas
es,
and
not e
ligib
le fo
r §22
55 re
lief e
ven
if it
had
any
subs
tant
ive
mer
it, w
hich
it d
oes n
ot.
A. P
roce
dura
l ove
rvie
w
The
base
line
case
for
pro
cedu
ral
requ
irem
ents
for
one
see
king
§22
55 r
elie
f is
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Fra
dy, 4
56 U
.S. 1
52 (1
982)
, whi
ch e
nunc
iate
d a
“cau
se a
nd a
ctua
l pre
judi
ce”
stan
dard
–
two
dist
inct
ele
men
ts,
each
of
whi
ch i
t is
the
mov
ant’s
bur
den
to e
stab
lish.
Id.
at
167-
168.
“Cau
se”
refe
rs to
the
requ
irem
ent t
hat f
or a
ny c
laim
whi
ch a
§22
55 p
etiti
oner
did
not
rais
e in
his
dire
ct a
ppea
l, th
e pe
titio
ner
mus
t sh
ow t
hat
som
e ob
ject
ive
fact
or e
xter
nal
to t
he d
efen
se
prev
ente
d th
e pe
titio
ner
and
his
coun
sel
from
rai
sing
the
cla
im o
n di
rect
app
eal.
See
Lynn
v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es,
365
F.3d
122
5, 1
235
(11th
Cir.
200
4).
“The
que
stio
n is
not
whe
ther
leg
al
deve
lopm
ents
or n
ew e
vide
nce
has
mad
e a
clai
m e
asie
r or b
ette
r, bu
t whe
ther
at t
he ti
me
of th
e
dire
ct a
ppea
l, th
e cl
aim
was
ava
ilabl
e at
all,
” id
. “Pr
ejud
ice”
requ
ires
a §2
255
petit
ione
r to
show
that
the
com
plai
ned-
of e
rror
s cr
eate
d “n
ot m
erel
y . .
. a
poss
ibili
ty o
f pr
ejud
ice,
but
tha
t th
ey
wor
ked
to h
is a
ctua
l an
d su
bsta
ntia
l di
sadv
anta
ge,
infe
ctin
g hi
s en
tire
trial
with
err
or o
f
cons
titut
ion
dim
ensi
ons.”
Fra
dy,4
56 U
.S. a
t 170
(em
phas
isin
orig
inal
).
To t
hese
tw
o fu
ndam
enta
l pr
oced
ural
pill
ars
for
§225
5 ju
rispr
uden
ce–
“cau
se”
and
“pre
judi
ce”
–a
third
sho
uld
be a
dded
: th
e do
ctrin
eag
ains
t rel
itiga
ting
in a
§22
55 m
otio
n is
sues
that
alre
ady
wer
e ra
ised
on
dire
ct a
ppea
l.“[
C]la
ims
will
ord
inar
ily n
ot b
e en
terta
ined
und
er
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 6
of 6
1
7
§225
5 th
at h
ave
alre
ady
been
rej
ecte
d on
dire
ct r
evie
w,”
Ree
d v.
Far
ley,
512
U.S
. 33
9
(199
4)(S
calia
, J.,
con
curr
ing)
. Se
e al
so M
oore
v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es,
598
F.2d
439
, 44
1 (5
thC
ir.
1979
)(“I
f is
sues
are
rai
sed
and
cons
ider
ed o
n di
rect
app
eal,
a de
fend
ant i
s th
erea
fter p
recl
uded
from
urg
ing
the
sam
e is
sues
in a
late
r col
late
ral a
ttack
”); U
nite
d St
ates
v. N
yhui
s, 21
1 F.
3d 1
340,
1343
(11th
Cir.
200
0)(o
nce
a m
atte
r has
bee
n de
cide
d ad
vers
ely
to d
efen
dant
on
dire
ct a
ppea
l, it
cann
ot b
e re
-litig
ated
in a
§22
55 c
olla
tera
l atta
ck).
This
pr
inci
ple
–so
met
imes
ca
lled
“the
man
date
rule
”–
is r
elat
ed, a
nd c
orol
lary
to, t
he “
caus
e” s
tand
ard:
Bot
h ar
e do
ctrin
es o
f cl
aim
-
prec
lusi
on,
beca
use
a §2
255
petit
ione
r or
dina
rily
may
nei
ther
re-
litig
ate
clai
ms
that
wer
e
prev
ious
ly li
tigat
ed in
the
dire
ct a
ppea
l (th
e m
anda
te ru
le),
nor c
laim
s th
at c
ould
hav
e be
en, b
ut
wer
e no
t, lit
igat
ed in
the
dire
ct a
ppea
l (th
e “c
ause
” st
anda
rd).
See
Yick
Man
Mui
v. U
nite
d St
ates
,
614
F.3d
50,
53-
54(2
ndC
ir. 2
010)
;se
e al
so U
nite
d St
ates
v. P
eirc
e, 2
011
WL
4001
071,
*2
(S.D
.N.Y
. 201
1).
All
thre
e pi
llars
–
the
man
date
ru
le,
the
“cau
se”
stan
dard
, an
d th
e “p
reju
dice
”
requ
irem
ent–
bar M
ovan
ts’ c
laim
sre
gard
ing
Uni
ted
Stat
es g
over
nmen
t pay
men
ts to
jour
nalis
ts.
Firs
t, th
eirc
laim
s ar
e ba
sed
onth
e is
sue
of c
omm
unity
atti
tude
s, bi
ases
and
sup
pose
d pr
ejud
ices
in th
e ve
nue,
incl
udin
g as
impa
cted
by lo
cal n
ews
med
ia, w
hich
issu
e w
as m
assi
vely
litig
ated
prev
ious
ly,
both
at
the
trial
lev
el a
nd o
n ap
peal
. W
hile
Mov
ants
arg
ue t
hat
new
inf
orm
atio
n
publ
ishe
d in
the
200
6 M
iam
i H
eral
d ar
ticle
add
s a
new
dim
ensi
on t
o th
eir
chal
leng
e to
the
fairn
ess
of t
he v
enue
, the
ir §2
255
mot
ions
lar
gely
seek
to
reas
sert
the
sam
e cl
aim
–w
ith t
he
sam
e ty
pe o
f de
pict
ion
of a
tria
l bes
iege
d by
fea
r an
d ju
ry h
aras
smen
tfou
nd in
prio
rap
pella
te
plea
ding
s –
that
was
pre
viou
sly
reje
cted
on d
irect
app
eal,
in c
ontra
vent
ion
of th
e m
anda
te r
ule.
Seco
nd, M
ovan
ts’d
iscu
ssio
n of
the
2006
info
rmat
ion
expa
nds
into
gen
eral
cla
ims
that
they
wer
e
wel
l aw
are
of a
t the
tim
e of
tria
l and
cou
ld h
ave
rais
ed a
t tria
l and
on
dire
ct a
ppea
l, su
ch a
s bro
ad
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 7
of 6
1
8
denu
ncia
tion
of t
he U
nite
d St
ates
inf
orm
atio
n(o
r, as
the
y pu
t it,
“pr
opag
anda
”) p
rogr
am o
f
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti,
and
suc
h as
add
ition
al n
ewsp
aper
sto
ries
publ
ishe
d at
and
bef
ore
the
time
of tr
ial.
Thes
e ne
ws
artic
les,
and
the
Off
ice
of C
uba
Bro
adca
stin
g (w
hich
pro
duce
s R
adio
Mar
ti an
d TV
Mar
ti) a
ll w
ere
in e
xist
ence
and
kno
wn
(or,
with
due
dili
genc
e, k
now
able
) to
the
defe
nse
at tr
ial,
and
the
Mov
ants
have
no
“cau
se”
for
not h
avin
g ra
ised
cla
ims
base
d on
thes
e
pre-
2006
issu
es a
nd d
ata
at tr
ial a
nd o
n ap
peal
, in
cont
rave
ntio
n of
the
“cau
se”
stan
dard
. Fin
ally
,
Mov
ants
do n
ot, a
nd c
anno
t, sh
ow p
reju
dice
as r
equi
red
by th
e Fr
ady
stan
dard
. N
ot o
nly
do th
ey
fail
to s
how
that
they
suf
fere
d an
y pr
ejud
ice
at
trial
due
to R
adio
Mar
ti an
d TV
Mar
ti ha
ving
paid
loc
al j
ourn
alis
ts t
o ap
pear
on
broa
dcas
tsdi
rect
ed t
o th
e na
tion
ofC
uba,
the
app
ella
te
deci
sion
on
the
very
issu
e of
jury
fairn
ess,
and
pres
s co
vera
ge,i
n th
is c
ase
esta
blis
hes
that
ther
e
was
no
prej
udic
e. C
ampa
2 c
oncl
uded
that
the
trial
cou
rt’s v
oir-
dire
pro
cess
–“a
mod
el .
. . f
or a
high
pro
file
case
,” 4
59 F
.3d
at 1
147
–an
d ot
her m
easu
res
take
n by
the
cour
t ass
ured
a fa
ir tri
al
and
a ju
ry t
hat
was
act
ually
unb
iase
d; t
hat
perv
asiv
e co
mm
unity
pre
judi
ce c
ould
not
be
pres
umed
, no
twith
stan
ding
the
appe
llant
s’ (
incl
udin
g M
ovan
ts’)
ful
l op
portu
nity
to
deve
lop
a
reco
rd o
f con
tem
pora
neou
s pu
blic
ity; a
nd th
at e
ven
if, a
rgue
ndo,
pre
judi
ce w
ere
to b
e pr
esum
ed,
the
trial
cou
rt's
care
ful a
nd th
orou
gh v
oir d
ire re
butte
d an
y pr
esum
ptio
n, id
. at 1
148.
In s
hort,
the
Cou
rt of
App
eals
det
erm
ined
, on
the
ver
y is
sue
of c
omm
unity
-an
d ju
ry-p
reju
dice
whi
ch
Mov
ants
see
k to
rev
isit,
tha
t M
ovan
ts r
ecei
ved
a fa
ir tri
al. T
he p
artie
s an
d th
e tri
al c
ourt
are
boun
d by
that
det
erm
inat
ion.
The
re is
sim
ply
no in
jury
or h
arm
to b
e re
med
ied,
and
whe
re th
ere
is n
o pr
ejud
ice,
ther
e is
no
basi
s for
§22
55re
lief.
B. S
ubst
antiv
ely,
Mov
ant’
s cla
im fa
ils
The
Uni
ted
Stat
es w
ill a
ddre
ss t
hese
thr
ee p
roce
dura
l pi
llars
fur
ther
in
this
res
pons
e.
Firs
t, ho
wev
er,
we
addr
ess
the
subs
tanc
e of
Mov
ants
’ cl
aim
, no
twith
stan
ding
tha
t it
is
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 8
of 6
1
9
proc
edur
ally
bar
red,
to
disp
el a
ny c
once
rns
rais
ed b
y M
ovan
ts’
heat
ed c
hara
cter
izat
ions
.
Mov
ants
repe
ated
ly re
fere
nce
a su
ppos
ed g
over
nmen
t pro
gram
to p
ropa
gand
ize
the
sout
h Fl
orid
a
com
mun
ity a
nd to
pro
mot
e in
flam
mat
ory,
pro
-pro
secu
tion,
ant
i-def
enda
nt m
edia
pub
licat
ion
in
the
venu
e, b
ut t
he f
acts
addu
ced
by t
hem
do
not
supp
ort
this
rhet
oric
. Th
e fa
ctua
l m
ater
ial
Mov
ants
refe
renc
e8sh
ow t
hat
the
Off
ice
of C
uba
Bro
adca
stin
g(“
OC
B”)
con
tract
ed w
ith
indi
vidu
als,
incl
udin
g jo
urna
lists
, to
prov
ide
serv
ices
by
appe
arin
g on
Rad
io M
arti
and
TVM
arti
prog
ram
s.9
8M
ost o
f the
mat
eria
l is n
ot a
ppen
ded
to th
eir p
lead
ings
, but
rath
er is
bur
ied
with
in w
ebsi
tes t
hey
cite
, so
me
linki
ng t
o th
ousa
nds
of p
ages
of
docu
men
ts.
This
is
not
adeq
uate
to
stat
e a
clai
m
unde
r 28
U.S
.C. §
2255
or u
nder
the
Rul
es G
over
ning
Sec
tion
2255
Pro
ceed
ings
For
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es D
istri
ct C
ourts
. See
Rul
e 2(
b)(2
) [m
otio
n m
ust “
stat
e th
e fa
cts
supp
ortin
g ea
ch g
roun
d”].
With
out c
once
ding
that
this
is a
n ap
prop
riate
way
for M
ovan
ts to
mak
e a
reco
rd o
r to
carr
y th
eir
burd
en in
a §
2255
pet
ition
, and
with
out w
aivi
ng o
bjec
tion
to th
e in
adeq
uacy
of s
uch
a re
cord
, the
U
nite
d St
ates
has
revi
ewed
, and
will
add
ress
, mat
eria
ls fr
om th
e w
ebsi
tes M
ovan
ts c
ite.
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
broa
dcas
ting
is d
irect
ed a
t C
uba,
not
at
Flor
ida,
see
Atta
chm
ent
A,
and
alth
ough
Mov
ants
com
plai
n ab
out
leak
age
of R
adio
Mar
ti an
d TV
Mar
ti
broa
dcas
ting
into
sou
th F
lorid
a, t
hey
have
ide
ntifi
edno
par
ticul
ar R
adio
Mar
ti or
TV
Mar
ti
broa
dcas
ts t
hat
inju
red
them
or
that
rea
ched
the
jury
ven
ue.
Rat
her,
Mov
ants
focu
s th
eir
com
plai
nts
on n
ewsp
aper
sto
ries
and
othe
r m
edia
pro
duct
s pu
blis
hed
by n
on-g
over
nmen
tal
priv
ate
publ
ishi
ng e
ntiti
es–
i.e.,
not R
adio
Mar
ti or
TV
Mar
ti–
writ
ten
by s
ome
of th
esa
me
9A
ccor
ding
to th
e G
ener
al A
ccou
ntab
ility
Off
ice
2009
rep
ort “
BR
OA
DC
AST
ING
TO
CU
BA
: A
ctio
ns a
re N
eede
d to
Im
prov
e St
rate
gy a
nd O
pera
tions
,” U
.S.
Gov
’t A
ccou
ntab
ility
Off
ice,
G
AO
-09-
127
(200
9) (h
erea
fter “
GA
O R
epor
t”),
refe
renc
ed b
y M
ovan
ts, s
eeD
E/LM
5:4
n.2
, 31
n.19
; D
E/R
C 1
-2:1
, 33
n.1
9, t
he O
CB
is
a fe
dera
l en
tity
whi
ch o
pera
tes
Uni
ted
Stat
es
broa
dcas
ting
to C
uba
via
Rad
io a
nd T
V M
arti,
GA
O R
epor
t at 7
. Rad
io M
arti
has
its g
enes
is in
th
e R
adio
Bro
adca
stin
g to
Cub
a A
ct, p
asse
d by
Con
gres
s in
1983
“to
pro
vide
the
peop
le o
f Cub
a,
thro
ugh
Rad
io M
arti,
with
info
rmat
ion
they
wou
ld n
ot o
rdin
arily
rec
eive
due
to th
e ce
nsor
ship
pr
actic
es o
f th
e C
uban
gov
ernm
ent.”
Id.
at 6
. The
OC
B i
s pa
rt of
the
Bro
adca
stin
g B
oard
of
Gov
erno
rs (“
BB
G”)
, “w
hich
is a
n in
depe
nden
t fed
eral
age
ncy
resp
onsi
ble
for o
vers
eein
g al
l U.S
. go
vern
men
t-spo
nsor
ed n
onm
ilita
ry, i
nter
natio
nal b
road
cast
ing
prog
ram
s,” id
. at 7
. Oth
er B
BG
-ov
erse
en b
road
cast
pro
gram
s in
clud
e V
oice
of
Am
eric
a, M
iddl
e Ea
st B
road
cast
ing
Net
wor
ks
Inc.
, Rad
io F
ree
Euro
pe/R
adio
Lib
erty
and
Rad
io F
ree
Asi
a. Id
.Th
e G
AO
Rep
ort i
s av
aila
ble
at 2
009
WL
2847
28, b
ut w
ithou
t pag
inat
ion.
A p
agin
ated
cop
y ca
n be
foun
d at
http
://w
ww
.gao
.gov
/new
.item
s/d0
9127
.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 9
of 6
1
10
jour
nalis
tsan
d pu
blis
hed
in s
outh
Flo
rida.
See
DE/
LM 5
:14-
17; D
E/R
C 1
-3 (
Mov
ant C
ampa
’s
App
endi
x A
).W
ith n
o su
ppor
ting
evid
ence
, Mov
ants
then
con
tend
that
thes
e no
n-go
vern
men
t
publ
icat
ions
are
“new
s ar
ticle
s th
e go
vern
men
t pai
d to
be
crea
ted
and
diss
emin
ated
thro
ugho
ut
the
Sout
hern
Dis
trict
of
Flor
ida,
” D
E/LM
5:1
4. S
ee a
lso
DE/
RC
1-2
:2 (
“[T]
he U
nite
d St
ates
gove
rnm
ent w
as d
irect
ly c
ompl
icit
in c
reat
ing
the
publ
icity
at i
ssue
,” r
efer
ring
to D
E/R
C 1
-3,
appe
ndix
list
ing
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l new
spap
er a
rticl
e in
sou
th F
lorid
a pu
blic
atio
ns),
DE/
RC
1-
2:15
(des
crib
ing
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l new
s cov
erag
e as
“go
vern
men
t-pai
d m
edia
cam
paig
n”).
The
fact
ual m
ater
ials
Mov
ants
sub
mit
or r
efer
ence
are
to th
e co
ntra
ry,a
nd c
oncl
usiv
ely
refu
te th
e co
njec
ture
and
insi
nuat
ion
that
the
gove
rnm
ent p
aym
ent p
urch
ased
and
man
ipul
ated
priv
ate
med
ia c
over
age
in s
outh
Flo
rida.
That
is,
notw
ithst
andi
ng c
ompl
aint
sab
out
the
proc
essi
ngof
Fre
edom
of
Info
rmat
ion
Act
(“F
OIA
”) r
eque
sts
mad
e by
Mov
ants
’th
ird-p
arty
supp
orte
rs,
volu
min
ous
mat
eria
l w
as o
btai
ned
by t
hem
fro
m t
he B
BG
doc
umen
ting
purc
hase
orde
rs a
nd c
ontra
cts
betw
een
the
BB
G a
nd jo
urna
lists
. Tho
usan
ds o
f pa
ges
of th
is m
ater
ial i
s
linke
d to
a w
ebsi
te M
ovan
ts r
efer
ence
, ht
tp://
ww
w.p
slw
eb.o
rg/re
porte
rs-f
or-h
ire/d
ocum
ents
-
rele
ased
/,se
e D
E/LM
5:1
3 n.
3, D
E/R
C 1
-2:1
7 n.
4, y
et M
ovan
ts c
hose
not
to a
ppen
d or
anal
yze
any
of th
e co
ntra
cts
or p
urch
ase
orde
rs.
Inde
ed, t
he p
urch
ase
orde
rsre
fute
Mov
ants
’spe
cula
tive
prem
ise
that
the
gove
rnm
ent p
aid
for n
onR
adio
-or T
V-M
arti
serv
ices
, or f
or a
ny p
rivat
e-m
edia
wor
k an
ywhe
re,
incl
udin
g so
uth
Flor
ida.
Som
e of
thi
s m
ater
ial,
rela
ting
to t
he s
ix i
ndiv
idua
l
pers
ons
argu
ably
rel
evan
t to
Mov
ants
’ cl
aim
, is
appe
nded
as A
ttach
men
t B.10
10A
ttach
men
t B
com
pile
s co
ntra
ctua
l pu
rcha
se o
rder
s be
twee
n th
e O
CB
and
Hel
en F
erre
, W
ilfre
do C
anci
o Is
la, P
ablo
Alfo
nso,
Arie
l Rem
os a
nd E
nriq
ue E
spin
osa.
The
web
site
Mov
ants
re
fere
nce
has
cont
ract
mat
eria
ls f
or n
umer
ous
othe
r jo
urna
lists
with
the
OC
B, b
ut m
ost a
re f
or
cont
ract
s an
d pa
ymen
ts s
ubse
quen
t to
the
trial
in th
is c
ase.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, the
y ha
ve n
ore
leva
nce
to M
ovan
ts’
clai
m th
at s
omeh
ow th
e B
BG
’s p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
impa
cted
or
com
prom
ised
th
eir
trial
. (In
deed
, th
e on
goin
g en
gage
men
t of
jou
rnal
ists
to
perf
orm
ser
vice
s fo
r th
e O
CB
’s
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti,
pos
t-tria
l an
d co
ntin
uing
int
o re
cent
yea
rs,
unde
rmin
es M
ovan
ts’
For
each
of
the
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 10
of 6
1
11
pers
ons,
the
appe
nded
mat
eria
land
pur
chas
e or
ders
ref
lect
that
thei
r fin
anci
al r
elat
ions
hip
with
the
BB
G /
OC
B w
as a
stra
ight
forw
ard
and
trans
pare
nt e
ngag
emen
t of
the
m t
o ap
pear
on
or
othe
rwis
e he
lp p
rodu
ce R
adio
Mar
tior
TV
Mar
ti pr
ogra
ms,
not f
or s
ervi
ces
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith
any
priv
ate
med
ia p
ublic
atio
nsor
out
lets
.See
, e.g
., A
ttach
men
t B a
t 2-4
11
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
prem
ise
that
som
ehow
suc
h en
gage
men
ts w
ere
inte
nded
or d
esig
ned
to im
pact
thei
r tria
l.) O
f the
fe
wer
jour
nalis
ts w
ho h
ad a
fina
ncia
l rel
atio
nshi
p w
ith th
e O
CB
/ B
BG
that
pre
date
s th
e en
d of
th
e tri
al, s
ome
are
not c
laim
ed b
y M
ovan
ts to
hav
e w
ritte
n or
pub
lishe
d an
ythi
ng re
latin
g to
them
or
thei
r ca
se; t
hese
indi
vidu
als
too
are
irrel
evan
t to
thei
r cl
aim
. Thi
s le
aves
the
five
indi
vidu
als
note
d ab
ove,
who
se m
ater
ial
rela
ting
to t
he p
erio
d pr
ior
to t
he e
nd o
f tri
al i
s ex
cerp
ted
at
Atta
chm
ent B
. (A
ttach
men
t B is
onl
y ex
cerp
ts; e
ven
for
thes
e fiv
e, th
ere
is a
dditi
onal
mat
eria
l, to
talin
g hu
ndre
ds o
f pa
ges.
Und
ersi
gned
cou
nsel
has
exa
min
ed i
t an
d fo
und
it si
mila
r to
the
ex
cerp
ts, f
or d
iffer
ent d
ates
.)
(pur
chas
e or
der
for
Ferr
e to
app
ear
Feb.
14,
200
1 as
gue
st o
n O
CB
“M
esa
Red
onda
” ro
undt
able
dis
cuss
ion,
for
$75.
00);
11-1
9(p
urch
ase
orde
r fo
r C
anci
o to
par
ticip
ate
in O
CB
wee
kly
half-
hour
sho
w “
A
Deb
ate”
for $
75.0
0pe
r sho
w, a
men
ded
to re
flect
a to
tal q
uant
ity o
f 52
wee
kly
appe
aran
ces)
; 31-
34 (p
urch
ase
orde
r for
Alfo
nso
to b
e an
exp
ert g
uest
on
the
Rad
io M
arti
wee
kly
one-
hour
sho
w
“Sin
Ped
ir Pe
rmis
o”, f
or $
200
per s
how
, am
ende
d to
refle
ct a
tota
l qua
ntity
of 5
2 sh
ows)
;35-
36
(pur
chas
e or
der f
or A
lfons
o to
co-
host
43
epis
odes
of a
one
-hou
r Rad
io M
arti
show
, “H
acie
ndo
Cam
inos
,” a
t $20
0 pe
r sho
w);
42-4
6 (p
urch
ase
orde
r for
Rem
os to
par
ticip
ate
in a
twic
e-w
eekl
y
Rad
io M
arti
show
“En
Viv
o” a
t $50
per
show
, am
ende
d to
refle
ct e
ngag
emen
t for
104
epi
sode
s);
Mov
ants
wou
ld a
dd a
six
th in
divi
dual
, Jul
io E
stor
ino,
bec
ause
his
res
ume
stat
es th
at h
e w
as a
n in
depe
nden
t co
ntra
ctor
with
the
Off
ice
of C
uba
Bro
adca
stin
g du
ring
the
rele
vant
tim
e pe
riod,
al
thou
gh n
o co
ntra
cts
or p
urch
ase
orde
rs h
ave
been
pro
duce
d. N
otw
ithst
andi
ng th
e sl
ende
rnes
s of
the
refe
renc
e, w
e in
clud
e th
e Es
torin
o re
sum
e at
the
end
of A
ttach
men
t B.
Mov
ants
als
o na
me
Alb
erto
Mul
ler a
s a
“gov
ernm
ent p
aid
new
s re
porte
r,” s
ee D
E/LM
5:1
4 n.
3,
DE/
RC
1-2
:17.
The
web
site
mat
eria
ls t
hey
refe
renc
e sh
ow M
ulle
r re
ceiv
ing
BB
G p
aym
ents
be
ginn
ing
in20
04, w
ell
afte
r th
e tri
al e
nded
. Mul
ler
ther
efor
e is
irr
elev
ant
to t
heir
clai
m t
hat
som
ehow
BB
G p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
impa
cted
thei
r tria
l.11
Page
num
bers
ref
er to
the
pagi
natio
n as
sign
ed b
y th
e co
urt’s
CM
/EC
F he
ader
s at
the
top
of
each
pag
e.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 11
of 6
1
12
52-5
6 (p
urch
ase
orde
r fo
r Es
pino
sa t
o pa
rtici
pate
in
wee
kly
one-
hour
Rad
io M
arti
prog
ram
“Wee
kend
Mag
azin
e” a
t $10
0 pe
r sho
w, a
men
ded
to re
flect
52
epis
odes
).12
This
rec
ord
show
s th
at t
he p
aym
ents
mad
e by
the
BB
Gw
ere
for
defin
ed a
nd d
iscr
ete
serv
ices
to
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti,
not
for
med
ia c
over
age
and
publ
icat
ions
by
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l new
spap
ers
in s
outh
Flo
rida.
The
new
spap
er a
rticl
es b
y th
ese
indi
vidu
als
whi
ch
Mov
ants
dis
cuss
at
such
len
gth
and
with
suc
h ve
hem
ence
, se
e D
E/LM
5:1
3-14
n.3
, 14
-17;
DE/
RC
1-2
:6, 7
, 11
n.2,
12,
15,
17-
18; D
E/R
C 1
-3, w
ere
not p
aid
for b
y th
e go
vern
men
t and
are
not r
efer
ence
d by
or
the
subj
ect m
atte
r of
the
purc
hase
ord
ers.
Mov
ants
’ sp
ecul
ativ
e in
fere
nce
that
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
for
ser
vice
s to
Rad
io M
arti
mus
t hav
e al
so in
fluen
ced
and
shap
ed th
e
jour
nalis
ts’
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l pu
blic
atio
ns i
s w
ithou
t an
y pr
offe
red
evid
entia
ry f
ound
atio
n.
Thus
, whe
n M
ovan
ts m
ake
clai
ms
like
“the
Uni
ted
Stat
esgo
vern
men
twas
dire
ctly
com
plic
it in
crea
ting
the
[sou
th F
lorid
a ne
wsp
aper
] pu
blic
ity,”
DE/
RC
1-2
:2,
and
was
“flo
odin
g th
e
com
mun
ity w
ith p
reju
dici
al, i
nfla
mm
ator
y ne
ws
artic
les,”
DE/
RC
1-2
:5, t
his
hyp
erbo
le is
bas
ed
on n
o ev
iden
ce,
only
Mov
ants
’ ar
gum
enta
tive
and
spec
ulat
ive
insi
sten
ce t
hat
paym
ents
for
jour
nalis
ts t
o ap
pear
on
Rad
io a
nd T
V M
arti
mus
t ac
tual
ly,
or a
lso,
hav
e un
derw
ritte
n or
supp
orte
d th
eir n
on-g
over
nmen
t new
spap
er st
orie
s, co
ntra
ry to
the
docu
men
tatio
n.
The
per-
show
rate
of
paym
ent i
s m
odes
t, an
d fr
eque
ntly
not
ed a
s m
eetin
g th
e st
anda
rd
“VO
A”
(Voi
ce o
f A
mer
ica)
rate
sche
dule
,See
, e.g
., A
ttach
men
t B a
t12,
14,
43,
43.
Whi
le s
ome
indi
vidu
als
rece
ived
mor
e
mon
ey d
ue t
o th
e fr
eque
ncy
and
volu
me
of t
heir
OC
B w
ork,
the
rec
ords
ref
lect
tha
t th
eir
earn
ings
wer
e fo
r con
side
rabl
e se
rvic
es o
n R
adio
Mar
ti or
TV
Mar
ti pr
ogra
mm
ing.
12Fo
r the
sixt
h pe
rson
, Est
orin
o, M
ovan
ts re
fere
nced
no
spec
ific
cont
ract
s or
pur
chas
e or
ders
, as
note
d su
pra.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 12
of 6
1
13
Bot
h M
ovan
ts m
ake
verb
atim
iden
tical
arg
umen
ts, D
E/LM
5:3
0-33
; DE/
RC
1-2
:32-
36,
that
jou
rnal
ists
wer
e “c
o-op
ted”
by
BB
G p
aym
ents
to
diss
emin
ate
Uni
ted
Stat
es g
over
nmen
t
prop
agan
da a
bout
Cub
a do
mes
tical
ly,
and
sugg
est
that
thi
s ex
tend
ed t
o a
“med
ia a
ttack
” on
Mov
ants
. The
ir an
alys
is, h
owev
er, i
s bu
t a s
elec
tive
culli
ng fr
om d
ebat
es a
mon
g jo
urna
lists
as
to
the
prof
essi
onal
eth
ics
of r
ecei
ving
gov
ernm
ent r
emun
erat
ion,
with
no
grou
ndin
g in
cas
elaw
or
lega
l au
thor
ity u
pon
whi
ch t
o ap
ply
a jo
urna
lism
-eth
ics
deba
te t
o fe
dera
l cr
imin
al l
itiga
tion.
Inde
ed, n
one
of th
e pa
rtici
pant
s in
the
jour
nalis
m d
ebat
e, a
nd n
othi
ng in
the
Mov
ants
’ ref
eren
ced
mat
eria
ls, d
iscu
ssed
or a
ddre
ssed
the
issu
e in
the
cont
ext o
f Mov
ants
’ cas
e at
all.
Even
the
jou
rnal
ism
-pro
fess
ion
deba
te o
ver
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
, w
ith n
o co
ntex
tual
refe
renc
e to
Mov
ants
’ ca
se, w
as a
mbi
guou
s. W
hile
two
repo
rters
at E
l Nue
vo H
eral
d w
ho h
ad
rece
ived
BB
G p
aym
ents
wer
e fir
edfo
r vi
olat
ion
of T
he M
iam
i Her
ald
Med
ia C
ompa
ny e
thic
s
polic
ies,
they
wer
e (a
s M
ovan
ts n
ote)
rei
nsta
ted.
Oth
er B
BG
-rem
uner
ated
jou
rnal
ists
,at
non
-
Mia
mi
Her
ald
Med
ia C
ompa
ny p
ublic
atio
ns, w
ere
not
fired
; as
Dia
rio
Las
Amer
icas
edito
rial
writ
er F
erre
poi
nted
out
, rep
orte
rs a
t oth
er p
ublic
atio
ns c
ould
not
be
held
to M
iam
i Her
ald
ethi
cs
stan
dard
s. Se
e C
olum
bia
Jour
nalis
m S
choo
l Kni
ght C
ase
Stud
ies
Initi
ativ
e: W
hen
the
stor
y is
us:
Mia
mi H
eral
d, N
uevo
Her
ald
and
Radi
o M
arti
(her
eafte
r “C
ase
Stud
y”),
refe
renc
ed b
y M
ovan
ts
at D
E/LM
5:3
1-33
, D
E/R
C 1
-2:3
3-36
.Fi
red
El N
uevo
Her
ald
repo
rter
Can
cio
said
he
had
clea
red
rece
ivin
g th
e B
BG
rem
uner
atio
n w
ith a
prio
r ed
itor;
fired
rep
orte
r A
lfons
o’s
regu
lar
wor
k fo
r R
adio
and
TV
Mar
ti tu
rned
out
to
have
bee
n a
know
n an
d pr
evio
usly
-pub
lishe
d
circ
umst
ance
, Cas
e St
udy
at 1
4. B
oth
wer
e re
inst
ated
. Sub
sequ
ent r
epor
ting
esta
blis
hed
that
the
BB
G p
aid
othe
r jo
urna
lists
for
app
earin
g on
oth
er B
BG
pro
gram
min
g, li
ke V
oice
of
Am
eric
a,
unre
late
d to
Cub
a. I
d. a
t 17
n.23
, 18.
A la
ter
inte
rnal
rev
iew
by
The
Mia
mi H
eral
d of
its
own
cove
rage
con
clud
ed th
at th
e Se
ptem
ber 8
, 200
6, s
tory
was
flaw
ed a
nd o
verly
acc
usat
ory
in to
ne.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 13
of 6
1
14
See
Joe
Stru
pp, H
oyt’s
Rep
ort o
n Fl
awed
“M
iam
i Her
ald”
Cov
erag
e, E
dito
r & P
ublis
her (
Nov
.
17, 2
006)
, ref
eren
ced
by M
ovan
t C
ampa
at
DE/
RC
1-2
:11.
13
Mov
ants
’ co
-opt
atio
n pr
emis
e al
so is
illo
gica
l. Pr
ior
to tr
ial,
durin
g tri
al a
nd o
n ap
peal
Mov
ants
’ pos
ition
was
that
the
sout
h Fl
orid
a pr
ess
was
pro
-gov
ernm
ent,
anti-
Cub
a, a
nti-d
efen
se
and
bias
ed a
gain
st th
em.
The
Her
ald
inte
rnal
rev
iew
als
o
reje
cted
com
paris
ons
that
had
bee
n m
ade
to a
200
5 in
cide
nt i
n w
hich
the
Dep
artm
ent
of
Educ
atio
n ha
d pa
id a
talk
-sho
w h
ost t
o pr
omot
e th
e go
vern
men
t’s “
No
Chi
ld L
eft B
ehin
d” p
olic
y
in m
ains
tream
Uni
ted
Stat
es m
edia
. As t
he H
eral
d re
view
not
ed, t
he jo
urna
lists
who
app
eare
d on
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
wer
e no
t pai
d to
bro
adca
st w
ithin
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es, a
nd w
ere
not p
aid
to p
rom
ote
a pa
rticu
lar g
over
nmen
t pol
icy.
Id. Y
et th
at ty
pe o
f fla
wed
com
paris
on is
exa
ctly
the
anal
ysis
Mov
ants
sugg
est. 14
13N
o w
ebsi
te
refe
renc
e fo
r th
is
artic
le
was
pr
ovid
ed,
but
it ca
n be
fo
und
at
The
notio
n th
at b
eing
pai
d $7
5 to
mak
e an
app
eara
nce
on a
Rad
io
http
://w
ww
.edi
tora
ndpu
blis
her.c
om/A
rticl
e/H
oyt-s
-Rep
ort-o
n-Fl
awed
-Mia
mi-H
eral
d-C
over
age
,14
See,
e.g
., M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
ope
ning
brie
f in
Cam
pa 1
, 200
3 W
L 25
2454
78 a
t *16
(“di
stin
ctly
ad
vers
e m
edia
pub
licity
” co
ntrib
uted
to
tain
ting
the
trial
); A
ppel
late
Joi
nt B
rief
of M
ovan
t M
edin
a an
d co
-def
enda
nts
Her
nand
ez, G
uerr
ero
and
Gon
zale
z in
Cam
pa 1
(con
solid
ated
Cas
e N
o. 0
3-11
0-87
, app
eal f
rom
den
ial o
f mot
ion
for n
ew tr
ial)
at 3
7 (“
blis
terin
g ed
itoria
ls a
nd n
ews
artic
les t
hrou
ghou
t tria
l”);
App
ella
te B
rief o
f Mov
ant C
ampa
in C
ampa
1(c
onso
lidat
ed C
ase
No.
03
-110
-87,
app
eal f
rom
den
ial o
f mot
ion
for n
ew tr
ial)
at 3
9 (4
0 ye
ars
of a
nti-C
astro
pub
licity
in
Mia
mi c
reat
ed h
ostil
e at
mos
pher
e), 6
6 (lo
ng s
tream
of l
ocal
-pre
ss a
rticl
es “
rele
ntle
ssly
por
traye
d [C
uba
and
the
Cas
tro r
egim
e] a
s a
hum
an r
ight
s ab
user
and
int
erna
tiona
l pa
riah”
), 75
(lo
cal
med
ia g
reat
ly r
e-en
forc
e w
ides
prea
d co
mm
unity
vie
w t
hat
gove
rnm
ent
of C
uba
terr
oriz
es i
ts
citiz
ens
and
belo
ngs
on t
erro
rism
bla
cklis
t; “[
h]ar
dly
a da
y go
es b
y w
ithou
t th
ere
bein
g so
met
hing
in
the
mas
s m
edia
tha
t se
vere
ly c
ritic
izes
the
Cub
an g
over
nmen
t or
oth
erw
ise
fans
an
ti-C
astro
sen
timen
ts”)
; co-
defe
ndan
t Gon
zale
z’s
open
ing
brie
f in
Cam
pa 2
, 200
5 W
L 46
3801
2 at
Sec
tion
IV.
1 [th
e W
estla
w v
ersi
on d
oes
not
cont
ain
full
star
pag
ing]
(cla
im o
f m
any
prej
udic
ial
pres
s m
atte
rs;“
Def
ense
cou
nsel
poi
nted
out
the
one
-sid
ed n
atur
e of
the
pre
ss
cove
rage
”);
co-d
efen
dant
Her
nand
ez’s
ope
ning
brie
f in
Cam
pa 2
, 20
03 W
L 25
2457
1 at
*38
(S
pani
sh-la
ngua
ge n
ewsp
aper
s an
d ra
dio
“wer
e co
nsta
nt in
gal
vani
zing
” op
posi
tion
to C
uba
and
its s
pies
); M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
ope
ning
brie
f in
Cam
pa 2
, 200
5 W
L 46
3801
1 at
*41
(“w
ides
prea
d ad
vers
e an
d ed
itoria
lized
pub
licity
sur
roun
ding
the
case
”); c
o-de
fend
ant G
onza
lez’
s re
ply
brie
f in
Cam
pa 2
, 200
6 W
L22
5211
9 at
*2-
*24
(“di
stur
bing
nat
ure
and
mag
nitu
de o
f med
ia c
over
age
. . .
bar
rage
of m
edia
cov
erag
e w
as h
ardl
y pe
riphe
ral o
r obj
ectiv
e . .
. M
edia
cov
erag
e in
tens
ified
[f
ootn
ote
cont
inue
d]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 14
of 6
1
15
Mar
ti pr
ogra
m w
ould
tran
sfor
m jo
urna
lists
–w
hom
Mov
ants
alre
ady
cons
ider
ed b
iase
d –
from
bein
g ob
ject
ive
to b
eing
ant
i-def
ense
pro
paga
ndis
ts d
efie
s th
eir
own
prio
r ar
gum
ents
and
conf
ound
s re
ason
. As
repo
rter
Can
cio
stat
ed f
or t
he C
ase
Stud
y, “
Wha
t I
thou
ght
abou
t C
uba
didn
’t ch
ange
bec
ause
I di
d so
me
wor
k at
Rad
io M
arti.
” C
ase
Stud
y at
14.
C. P
roce
dura
l iss
ues:
“C
ause
”
Subs
tant
ivel
y, th
en, M
ovan
ts’
clai
ms
abou
t BB
G p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
do
not s
tate
a
viol
atio
n of
any
lega
l rig
ht, o
r a d
ue-p
roce
ss v
iola
tion.
To
the
exte
nt th
at M
ovan
ts se
ek to
exp
and
thei
r cl
aim
bey
ond
the
2006
-em
ergi
ng in
form
atio
n to
mou
nt a
bro
ad a
nd g
ener
al a
ttack
aga
inst
the
BB
G, t
he O
CB
, Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
and
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es’ f
orei
gnpo
licy
with
rega
rd
to b
road
cast
ing
to C
uba,
the
y tra
nsgr
ess
the
“cau
se”
stan
dard
. Th
at i
s, al
l th
ese
mat
ters
wer
e
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
pass
ions
with
in t
he v
enue
by
stre
ssin
g ha
rms
to t
he c
omm
unity
as
a re
sult
of t
he d
efen
dant
s’
activ
ities
and
the
shoo
tdow
n in
cide
nt; b
y ch
arac
teriz
ing
thos
e ha
rms
in in
flam
mat
ory
term
s as
‘m
urde
rs’ a
nd ‘t
erro
rism
;’ an
d by
labe
ling
the
perp
etra
tors
, ide
ntifi
ed n
ot o
nly
as th
e de
fend
ants
, bu
t als
o as
the
Cub
an g
over
nmen
t and
Cas
tro h
imse
lf, a
s gu
ilty
beyo
nd d
oubt
. . .
. Def
initi
ve
asse
rtion
s of
the
def
enda
nts’
gui
lt, a
s w
ell
as t
hat
of C
uban
gov
ernm
ent
and
Cas
tro,
thus
ap
pear
ed r
epea
tedl
y in
the
pres
s . .
. pu
blic
ity s
urro
undi
ng th
is c
ase,
whe
ther
off
ered
as
feat
ure,
ne
ws,
or c
omm
enta
ry,
was
pre
sent
ed v
irtua
lly e
ntire
ly f
rom
an
inte
nsel
y pr
osec
utor
ial,
guilt
-as
sum
ing,
and
exi
le-c
omm
unity
per
spec
tive,
ass
ertin
g re
peat
edly
–pr
ior
to ju
ry d
elib
erat
ions
–th
at th
e de
fend
ants
, alo
ng w
ith th
e C
uban
gov
ernm
ent a
nd C
astro
him
self,
wer
e gu
ilty
beyo
nd
doub
t . .
. num
erou
s ar
ticle
s re
porti
ng n
egat
ive,
if n
ot d
ange
rous
, con
sequ
ence
s ar
isin
g fr
om a
pe
rcei
ved
failu
re to
em
brac
e th
e ex
ile v
iew
poin
t, ta
inte
d th
e fa
irnes
s of t
he tr
ial.”
)
The
App
ella
te J
oint
Brie
f of
Mov
ant
Med
ina
and
co-d
efen
dant
s H
erna
ndez
, G
uerr
ero
and
Gon
zale
z in
Cam
pa 1
(con
solid
ated
Cas
e N
o. 0
3-11
0-87
, app
eal f
rom
den
ial o
f mot
ion
for n
ew
trial
) and
the
App
ella
te B
rief o
f Mov
ant C
ampa
in C
ampa
1(c
onso
lidat
ed C
ase
No.
03-
110-
87,
appe
al fr
om d
enia
l of m
otio
n fo
r new
tria
l) do
not
app
ear i
nW
estla
w. T
hey
are
appe
nded
her
e as
at
tach
men
ts,
resp
ectiv
ely
Atta
chm
ents
C a
nd D
. A
gain
, pa
ge r
efer
ence
s ar
e to
the
CM
/EC
F nu
mbe
ring
at th
e to
p of
eac
h pa
ge.
It sh
ould
be
born
e in
min
d th
at th
e de
scrip
tions
in th
e ap
pella
te b
riefs
, cite
d ab
ove,
of t
he lo
cal
pres
s as
uni
form
ly a
nd re
lent
less
ly p
artis
an a
nd a
nti-d
efen
se, a
re o
f the
loca
l pre
ss g
ener
ally
, not
of
the
six
spec
ific
jour
nalis
ts M
ovan
ts fo
cus
on in
thei
r §22
55 m
otio
ns. T
his
furth
er d
imin
ishe
s th
e ou
tsiz
ed s
igni
fican
ce M
ovan
ts n
ow w
ould
pla
ce o
n th
e fe
w jo
urna
lists
who
rec
eive
d B
BG
pa
ymen
ts, a
nd a
lso
refu
tes
any
notio
n th
at th
e M
ovan
ts b
elie
ve th
at th
e B
BG
pay
men
ts tu
rned
ot
herw
ise
fair
jour
nalis
ts a
gain
st th
em.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 15
of 6
1
16
know
n to
, or k
now
able
by,
Mov
ants
at t
he ti
me
of th
eir t
rial a
nd o
f the
ir di
rect
app
eal.
Not
hing
prev
ente
d M
ovan
ts f
rom
laun
chin
g th
eir
broa
dsid
e ag
ains
t Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti,
and
the
BB
G b
road
cast
age
nda,
on
dire
ct a
ppea
l. Se
e Ly
nn v
. Uni
ted
Stat
es, s
upra
, 365
F.3
d at
123
5 (“
to
show
cau
se f
or p
roce
dura
l def
ault,
Lyn
n m
ust s
how
that
som
e ob
ject
ive
fact
or e
xter
nal t
o th
e
defe
nse
prev
ente
d Ly
nn o
r hi
s co
unse
l fro
m r
aisi
ng h
is c
laim
s on
dire
ct a
ppea
l”).
Thus
, whe
n
Mov
ants
arg
ue th
at R
adio
Mar
ti an
d TV
Mar
ti ha
ve b
een
criti
cize
d fo
r the
ir jo
urna
lism
stan
dard
s
and
man
agem
ent p
roto
cols
, see
DE/
LM 5
:30,
31
n.20
; DE/
RC
1-2
:32,
33
n.19
; or t
hat t
he B
BG
enga
ges
in fo
reig
n pr
opag
anda
spe
ndin
g $3
7-m
illio
n pe
r yea
r15to
eff
ect r
egim
e ch
ange
in C
uba,
see
DE/
LM 5
:33;
DE/
RC
1-2
:35;
or
that
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
have
bee
n ge
nera
lly
prob
lem
atic
sin
ce 1
983,
as
wel
l as
ine
ffec
tive,
see
DE/
LM 5
:29,
29
n.18
; D
E/R
C 1
-2:3
1, 3
1
n.17
,16
15M
ovan
ts’
use
of f
igur
es i
s pr
oble
mat
ic. B
oth
Mov
ants
ref
eren
ce $
34,0
00,0
00 a
yea
r as
the
m
easu
re o
f the
Uni
ted
Stat
es’ “
prop
agan
da”
cam
paig
n ag
ains
t Cub
a, se
e D
E/LM
5:4
, 31;
DE/
RC
1-
2: 1
, 33,
and
link
that
am
ount
as b
eing
bro
ught
to b
ear a
gain
st th
em a
nd th
eir c
ase,
see
DE/
LM
5:31
; D
E/R
C 1
-2:
1, 3
3; M
ovan
t C
ampa
als
o sp
eaks
of
the
gove
rnm
ent
spen
ding
“a
smal
l fo
rtune
” on
jour
nalis
ts to
pre
judi
ce h
im, D
E/R
C 1
-2:3
. But
of
cour
se, t
he m
ulti-
mill
ion
figur
e de
scrib
es n
ot t
he j
ourn
alis
t pa
ymen
ts b
ut t
he e
ntire
OC
B b
udge
t. Th
e ac
tual
am
ount
pai
d to
jo
urna
lists
is
far
less
, w
ith p
aym
ents
at
VO
A p
er-p
rogr
am s
tand
ard
rate
s. A
few
jou
rnal
ists
ea
rned
mor
e si
gnifi
cant
sum
s, du
e to
fre
quen
t pr
ogra
m a
ppea
ranc
es,
but
the
reco
rd m
ater
ial
refle
cts t
hat t
hese
wer
e fe
es fo
r ser
vice
s per
form
ed fo
r Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti.
Mov
ants
are
in v
iola
tion
of th
e “c
ause
” pr
oced
ural
bar
. Nor
can
they
pro
perly
arg
ue th
at
it w
as o
nly
the
2006
Mia
mi
Her
ald
artic
le a
bout
BB
G p
aym
ents
to
indi
vidu
al s
outh
Flo
rida
jour
nalis
ts th
at c
ould
hav
e aw
aken
ed th
em to
thes
e pr
e-ex
istin
g is
sues
. McC
lesk
ey v
. Zan
t, 49
9
U.S
. 46
7, 4
97(1
991)
,te
ache
s th
at s
o lo
ng a
s kn
own
or d
isco
vera
ble
info
rmat
ion
coul
d ha
ve
supp
orte
d a
clai
m, t
here
is n
ot “
caus
e” to
om
it it
(ther
e, fr
om a
firs
t fed
eral
hab
eas
petit
ion,
but
the
prin
cipl
e al
so a
pplie
s to
dire
ct a
ppea
ls p
rece
ding
a §
2255
act
ion,
see
Lyn
n v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es,
16A
typo
grap
hica
l pro
blem
in M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
brie
f at t
his p
oint
inco
rrec
tly jo
ins a
rgum
ent t
ext
to t
he q
uote
d st
atem
ent
from
Sen
. Zor
insk
y; M
ovan
t M
edin
a’s
brie
f, at
DE/
LM 2
9, u
sing
the
sa
me
verb
iage
, cor
rect
ly se
para
tes t
he m
ater
ial.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 16
of 6
1
17
supr
a, 3
65 F
.3d
at 1
235
n.19
) mer
ely
beca
use
addi
tiona
levi
denc
e su
ppor
ting
the
clai
m e
mer
ges
late
r:
If w
hat p
etiti
oner
kno
ws
or c
ould
dis
cove
r upo
n re
ason
able
inve
stig
atio
n su
ppor
ts
a cl
aim
for r
elie
f in
a fe
dera
l hab
eas
petit
ion,
wha
t he
does
not
kno
w is
irre
leva
nt.
Om
issi
on o
f th
e cl
aim
will
not
be
excu
sed
mer
ely
beca
use
evid
ence
dis
cove
red
late
r mig
ht a
lso
have
supp
orte
d or
stre
ngth
ened
the
clai
m.
McC
lesk
ey v
. Zan
t, su
pra,
at 4
98.17
Add
ition
ally
, the
new
s ar
ticle
s th
ey d
iscu
ss a
nd o
ther
s th
ey li
st in
Mov
ant C
ampa
’s D
E
1-3
also
exi
sted
and
wer
e kn
owab
le (
liter
ally
, pub
lishe
d) a
t the
tim
e of
tria
l and
of
thei
r di
rect
appe
al, a
nd th
ere
is n
o “c
ause
” fo
r Mov
ants
not
to h
ave
incl
uded
them
in th
e m
any
com
pila
tions
of p
ublic
ity th
ey b
roug
ht to
the
trial
cou
rt’s
atte
ntio
n. S
ee D
E/cr
329
, 334
, 397
, 455
, 483
, 498
,
656,
804,
1009
,16
38,
1669
–al
l de
fens
e pl
eadi
ngs
that
com
pile
d an
d pr
esen
ted
new
spap
er
artic
les
to th
e co
urt.
Inde
ed, o
ne o
f th
e pl
eadi
ngs,
DE/
cr 3
29, i
nclu
ded,
at p
age
19, o
ne o
f th
e
very
artic
les
also
cite
dno
w:
“Cae
Red
de
Espi
onaj
e de
Cub
a,Ar
rest
an a
10
en M
iam
i”,
El
17Ev
en
if th
ese
issu
esw
ere
not
proc
edur
ally
ba
rred
, th
ey
lack
su
bsta
ntiv
e m
erit.
N
otw
ithst
andi
ng M
ovan
ts’
nega
tive
view
of
the
BB
G a
nd i
ts f
unct
ion
with
reg
ard
to C
uba
broa
dcas
ting,
it o
pera
tes
purs
uant
to a
sta
tuto
ry m
anda
te, t
he R
adio
Bro
adca
stin
g to
Cub
a A
ct,
22 U
.S.C
. 146
5et
seq
.Se
e G
AO
Rep
ort a
t 6. “
Bro
adca
stin
g to
Cub
a ha
s be
en a
n im
porta
nt p
art
of U
.S. f
orei
gn p
olic
y to
war
d C
uba
for
mor
e th
an tw
o de
cade
s,” id
. at 4
1, a
nd w
hile
Mov
ants
m
ay n
ot a
gree
with
that
pol
icy,
they
can
not c
ite it
as
a du
e-pr
oces
s vi
olat
ion.
Nor
is th
e B
BG
’s
mis
sion
reg
ime-
chan
ge,
as M
ovan
ts c
laim
. A
gain
, th
e G
AO
Rep
ort
is i
nstru
ctiv
e: “
The
obje
ctiv
es o
f R
adio
and
TV
Mar
tí ar
e to
(1)
sup
port
the
right
of
the
Cub
an p
eopl
e to
see
k,
rece
ive,
and
impa
rt in
form
atio
n an
d id
eas
thro
ugh
any
med
ia a
nd r
egar
dles
s of
fron
tiers
; (2)
be
effe
ctiv
e in
furth
erin
g th
e op
en c
omm
unic
atio
n of
info
rmat
ion
and
idea
s th
roug
h th
e us
e of
radi
o an
d te
levi
sion
bro
adca
stin
g to
Cub
a; (3
) ser
ve a
s a
cons
iste
ntly
relia
ble
and
auth
orita
tive
sour
ce
of a
ccur
ate,
obj
ectiv
e, a
nd c
ompr
ehen
sive
new
s; a
nd (
4) p
rovi
de n
ews,
com
men
tary
, and
oth
er
info
rmat
ion
abou
t eve
nts i
n C
uba
and
else
whe
re to
pro
mot
e th
e ca
use
of fr
eedo
m in
Cub
a,”
id. a
t 6-
7.
OC
B
guid
elin
es
pros
crib
e in
serti
on
into
br
oadc
asts
of
pe
rson
al
opin
ion,
re
porti
ng
unsu
bsta
ntia
ted
info
rmat
ion,
and
inci
tem
ent t
o re
volt
or o
ther
vio
lenc
e, id
. at 2
6.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 17
of 6
1
18
Nue
vo H
eral
d, S
ept.
15,1
998,
item
1h.
in M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
App
endi
xA
, DE/
RC
1-3
:1;s
ee a
lso
DE/
RC
1-2
:2. T
hisf
urth
er d
emon
stra
test
he a
vaila
bilit
y of
this
mat
eria
l to
Mov
ants
yea
rs a
go.18
Bec
ause
the
deca
de-o
ld n
ews
artic
les
are
proc
edur
ally
bar
red,
the
gove
rnm
ent n
eed
not
addr
ess
thei
r sub
stan
ce, b
ut w
ill b
riefly
do
so, w
ithou
t aba
ndon
ing
or w
aivi
ng it
s pr
oced
ural
-bar
obje
ctio
n. G
ener
ally
, the
pro
file
of th
e ar
ticle
s is
not
sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t fro
m m
any
that
wer
e
prev
ious
ly p
rese
nted
, and
that
the
trial
and
app
ella
te c
ourts
det
erm
ined
did
not
pre
clud
e a
fair
trial
for
Mov
ants
, ei
ther
due
to
the
artic
les’
ton
e or
as
a re
flect
ion
of s
uppo
sed
com
mun
ity
prej
udic
e. M
any
of th
e ar
ticle
s Mov
ant r
efer
ence
s are
too
dist
ant i
n tim
e be
fore
the
trial
to p
ose
a
risk
of p
reju
dici
ng th
e en
tire
veni
re to
an
exte
nt th
at c
ould
not
be
cure
d by
the
cour
t’s m
odel
voi
r
dire
. See
Cam
pa 2
, 459
F.3
d at
114
5;19
see,
e.g
., ar
ticle
s 4
and
5 at
DE/
LM 5
:15,
20
18A
ny s
ugge
stio
n th
at th
e ar
ticle
s w
ere
unat
tain
able
with
out F
OIA
litig
atio
n, se
e D
E/C
R 1
-2:1
5 (“
. . .
as t
he F
OIA
pro
cess
has
pro
ceed
ed, a
nd a
s ad
ditio
nal n
ews s
torie
s ha
ve b
een
unco
vere
d . .
.”
), is
spe
ciou
s. Th
e ne
ws
artic
les
wer
e pu
blis
hed
to th
e w
orld
at t
he ti
me
they
wer
e w
ritte
n, a
nd
have
bee
n av
aila
ble
in a
rchi
ves a
nd o
nlin
e th
erea
fter.
and
artic
les
19A
ffirm
ing
the
trial
cou
rt’s a
sses
smen
t of t
he n
ews a
rticl
es, t
he E
leve
nth
Circ
uit s
aid:
Her
e, th
e ne
ws
mat
eria
ls s
ubm
itted
by
the
defe
ndan
ts fa
ll fa
r sho
rt of
the
volu
me,
sa
tura
tion,
and
inv
idio
usne
ss o
f ne
ws
cove
rage
suf
ficie
nt t
o pr
esum
e pr
ejud
ice.
O
f th
e nu
mer
ous
artic
les
subm
itted
, ver
y fe
w r
elat
ed d
irect
ly t
o th
e de
fend
ants
an
d th
eir
indi
ctm
ents
. Th
e ar
ticle
s pr
imar
ily c
once
rned
sub
ject
s su
ch a
s th
e co
mm
unity
ten
sion
s an
d pr
otes
ts r
elat
ed t
o ge
nera
l an
ti-C
astro
sen
timen
t, th
e co
nditi
ons
in C
uba,
and
oth
er o
ngoi
ng l
egal
cas
es, s
uch
as t
he E
lian
Gon
zale
z m
atte
r. O
f th
e ar
ticle
s ab
out
the
Bro
ther
s to
the
Res
cue
shoo
tdow
n, m
ost
wer
e pu
blis
hed
appr
oxim
atel
y on
e ye
ar b
efor
e th
e co
urt
first
rul
ed o
n th
e ch
ange
of
venu
e m
otio
n. T
here
fore
, th
e fe
w a
rticl
es t
hat
did
rela
te t
o th
e de
fend
ants
and
th
eir
alle
ged
activ
ities
in
pa
rticu
lar
wer
e to
o fa
ctua
l an
d to
o ol
d to
be
in
flam
mat
ory
or p
reju
dici
al. M
oreo
ver,
the
reco
rd r
efle
cts
that
not
a s
ingl
e ju
ror
who
del
iber
ated
on
this
cas
e in
dica
ted
that
he
or s
he w
as in
any
way
influ
ence
d by
new
s co
vera
ge o
f th
e ca
se. N
or d
oes
the
reco
rd r
efle
ct th
at a
ny o
ne o
f th
em
had
form
ed a
n op
inio
n ab
out t
he g
uilt
or in
noce
nce
of th
e de
fend
ants
bef
ore
the
trial
beg
an.
In f
act,
mos
t of
the
ven
ire r
evea
led
that
the
y w
ere
eith
er e
ntire
ly
unaw
are
of th
e ca
se, o
r ha
d on
ly a
vag
ue r
ecol
lect
ion
of it
. “To
igno
re th
e re
al
diff
eren
ces
in t
he p
oten
tial
for
prej
udic
e w
ould
not
adv
ance
the
cau
se o
f fu
ndam
enta
l fai
rnes
s, bu
t onl
y m
ake
impo
ssib
le th
e tim
ely
pros
ecut
ion
of p
erso
ns
who
are
wel
l kn
own
in t
he c
omm
unity
, w
heth
er t
hey
be n
otor
ious
or
mer
ely
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 18
of 6
1
19
1a-1
t, 3a
-c, 4
a, 6
a-h,
7a-
c at
DE/
RC
1-3
.O
ther
arti
cles
are
, lik
e so
me
asse
ssed
by
the
trial
cou
rt
prev
ious
ly a
nd b
y C
ampa
2,
not
rela
ted
dire
ctly
to
the
defe
ndan
ts a
nd t
heir
indi
ctm
ents
. Se
e
DE/
RC
1-3
arti
cle
1o (
abou
t up
com
ing
sem
inar
rev
iew
ing
the
Cub
an M
issi
le C
risis
, an
d
refe
rrin
gto
196
3 co
nsul
tatio
ns b
etw
een
Fide
l Cas
tro a
ndN
ikita
Khr
usch
ev o
n ho
w to
set
up
a
spy-
pene
tratio
n sy
stem
), 6d
(ab
out
Wal
l St
reet
Jou
rnal
edi
toria
l se
ekin
g ar
rest
of
Cas
tro i
n
para
llel
to a
rres
t of
Chi
lean
Gen
eral
Pin
oche
t w
hile
tra
velin
g ab
road
). W
hile
Mov
ants
may
cons
ider
that
arti
cles
ref
lect
ing
gene
rally
on
Cas
tro a
nd th
e go
vern
men
t of
Cub
a su
ppor
t the
ir
clai
ms
of a
n un
fair
trial
, C
ampa
2ex
pres
sly
addr
esse
d, a
nd r
ejec
ted,
tha
t ar
gum
ent.
See
459
F.3d
.at 1
144.
21
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
prom
inen
t.” A
ccor
ding
ly, t
he d
efen
dant
s ha
ve fa
iled
to d
emon
stra
te th
at th
is tr
ial
was
“ut
terly
cor
rupt
ed b
y pr
ess c
over
age.
”
Oth
er a
rticl
es a
re n
on-in
flam
mat
ory,
fac
tual
acc
ount
s of
tria
l pro
ceed
ings
. See
DE/
CR
1-3
, arti
cle
2b (
sum
mar
izin
g cl
osin
g st
atem
ent b
y M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
cou
nsel
, with
brie
f
men
tion,
at e
nd,o
f pr
osec
utor
’s c
losi
ng s
tate
men
t), a
rticl
e 2e
(fa
ctua
l acc
ount
of
case
goi
ng to
jury
, quo
ting
trial
judg
e’s
rem
arks
and
jury
inst
ruct
ions
).O
ne s
uch
artic
le, D
E/C
R 1
-3, a
rticl
e 2a
(rep
ortin
gla
wye
r ar
gum
ents
at
trial
, ou
tsid
e pr
esen
ce o
f ju
ry,
conc
erni
ng p
rosp
ect
of f
urth
er
depo
sitio
ns in
Cub
a), r
ecei
ves
parti
cula
r cr
itici
sm b
y M
ovan
ts, s
ee D
E/LM
5:1
6, D
E/C
R 1
-2:7
,
Cam
pa 2
, 459
F.3
d at
114
5 (f
ootn
otes
, cita
tions
om
itted
)20
Mov
ant M
edin
a ci
tes
and
addr
esse
s ni
ne a
rticl
es a
t DE/
LM 5
:14-
17. E
ight
of t
he n
ine
are
also
lis
ted
on M
ovan
tCam
pa’s
DE/
RC
1-3
, and
will
not
be
dupl
icat
ivel
y di
scus
sed.
The
rem
aini
ng
artic
le, n
umbe
r 8
at D
E/LM
5:1
5, is
sai
d to
be
an it
em w
ritte
n by
Jos
e B
asul
to, a
nd th
eref
ore
wou
ld h
ave
noth
ing
to d
o w
ith M
ovan
ts’
clai
ms
abou
t jou
rnal
ists
pai
d by
the
BB
G. T
he c
ited
Bas
ulto
arti
cle
is s
aid
to h
ave
been
writ
ten
in M
ay, 2
000,
mon
ths
befo
re th
e co
urt i
mpo
sed
its
gag
orde
r on
trial
witn
esse
s.21
“Pre
judi
ce a
gain
st a
def
enda
nt c
anno
t be
pre
sum
ed f
rom
pre
trial
pub
licity
reg
ardi
ng
perip
hera
l m
atte
rs t
hat
do n
ot r
elat
e di
rect
ly t
o th
e de
fend
ant's
gui
lt fo
r th
e cr
ime
char
ged.
In
fact
, w
e ar
e no
t aw
are
of a
ny c
ase
in w
hich
any
cou
rt ha
s ev
er h
eld
that
pre
judi
ce c
an b
e pr
esum
ed fr
om p
retri
al p
ublic
ity a
bout
issu
es o
ther
than
the
guilt
or i
nnoc
ence
of t
hede
fend
ant.”
45
9 F.
3d a
t 114
4 (f
ootn
otes
om
itted
).
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 19
of 6
1
20
for
repo
rting
on
even
ts t
hat
the
jury
was
not
priv
y to
. H
owev
er,
the
repo
rted-
on d
iscu
ssio
n
occu
rred
in o
pen
cour
t,se
e D
E/cr
156
0:11
726-
1175
3; th
e pr
ess
was
not
bar
red;
and
Mov
ants
do
not
clai
m t
hat
othe
r re
porte
rs u
ncon
nect
ed t
o B
BG
pay
men
ts d
id n
ot s
imila
rly r
epor
t co
urt
proc
eedi
ngs
that
occ
urre
d w
hen
the
jury
was
not
pre
sent
.Mov
ant M
edin
a al
so a
rgue
s th
at th
is
new
s arti
cle
occu
rred
six
days
afte
r the
cou
rt ca
utio
ned
abou
t med
ia re
porti
ng o
n in
form
atio
n th
e
jury
is n
ot p
rivy
to, D
E/LM
5:1
6, b
ut n
o ci
tatio
n is
pro
vide
d.C
erta
inly
the
cour
t nev
er s
tate
d or
rule
d th
at th
e pr
ess
coul
d no
t rep
ort m
atte
rs o
ccur
ring
in o
pen
cour
t.In
deed
, suc
h a
rulin
g co
uld
have
run
afo
ul o
f th
e Fi
rst A
men
dmen
t and
of
the
Sixt
h A
men
dmen
t req
uire
men
t tha
t crim
inal
trial
s be
publ
ic.
Fina
lly, w
ith r
egar
d to
the
“ca
use”
pro
cedu
ral
bar,
the
reco
rd r
efle
cts
that
the
defe
nse,
and
the
indi
vidu
al d
efen
dant
s, w
ere
keen
ly a
war
e of
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
and
its a
rgua
ble
adve
rsity
to
them
. A
mon
g th
e ta
skin
gs t
o th
e de
fend
ants
fro
m t
he C
uban
Dire
ctor
ate
of
Inte
llige
nce
was
obs
erva
tion
and
surv
eilla
nce
of T
V M
arti’
s ae
rost
at b
allo
on t
rans
mitt
er a
t
Cud
joe
Key
. Se
e D
G-1
08 (
dire
ctiv
eto
def
enda
nt H
erna
ndez
on
“urg
ent
task
” to
acq
uire
info
rmat
ion
on b
allo
on,
trans
mitt
ing
equi
pmen
t, tra
nsm
issi
on s
ched
ule,
how
sig
nal
will
be
dire
cted
, all
tow
ard
the
goal
of
prep
arin
g m
echa
nism
s “t
hat w
ill a
llow
the
neut
raliz
atio
n of
the
enem
y’s
sign
al”)
;se
e al
so D
E/cr
14
87:3
229;
148
9:34
95;
1580
:139
66-1
3967
; 15
82:1
4269
(test
imon
y an
d cl
osin
g ar
gum
ents
abo
ut c
o-co
nspi
rato
rs s
urve
illin
g, p
hoto
grap
hing
TV
Mar
ti
blim
p;go
vern
men
t of C
uba
conc
ern
abou
t TV
Mar
tiup
grad
e); D
C-1
02,D
E/cr
149
7:46
04-4
605,
1562
:119
46-1
1948
(task
ing
for
defe
ndan
t G
onza
lez
as t
o “a
ctiv
e m
easu
re”
Teje
dor,
to s
ow
diss
ensi
on b
etw
een
lead
ers
of R
adio
and
TV
Mar
ti an
dco
nser
vativ
e m
embe
rs o
f th
e C
uban
Am
eric
an N
atio
nal
Foun
datio
n in
Mia
mi).
Rad
io a
nd T
V M
arti
wer
e th
e su
bjec
t of
fre
quen
t
men
tion
and
test
imon
y at
the
tria
l. Se
e, e
.g.,
open
ing
stat
emen
t by
Her
nand
ez c
ouns
el, D
E/cr
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 20
of 6
1
21
1476
:161
7, a
nd t
estim
ony
elic
ited
by H
erna
ndez
cou
nsel
, in
clud
ing
collo
quy
and
cros
s-
exam
inat
ion,
DE/
cr
1504
:578
6-57
90;
1518
:608
1-60
95;
1534
:837
7-83
85;
1536
:866
2-86
65;
1537
:876
4-87
66;
1540
:900
1-90
05;
1541
:903
2-90
57;
1542
:922
8-92
36;
1545
:968
5-96
86,
conc
erni
ng w
itnes
s B
asul
to’s
inte
rvie
w o
n R
adio
Mar
ti’s
“En
Vivo
” sh
ow.
Cou
nsel
for M
ovan
t
Cam
pa a
lso
elic
ited
test
imon
y ab
out R
adio
Mar
ti. S
ee D
E/cr
151
8:61
25-6
130
(test
imon
y fr
om
Cub
an d
issi
dent
Mor
ejon
abo
ut a
ppea
ring
tele
phon
ical
ly o
n R
adio
Mar
ti).T
he c
ourt
and
coun
sel
disc
usse
d R
adio
and
TV M
arti
cove
ring
the
ongo
ing
trial
. See
DE/
cr 1
492:
3839
-384
0 (R
adio
Mar
ti re
ques
ted
trans
crip
ts),
158
5:14
646-
1464
7 (T
V M
arti
cam
eras
).In
deed
, bo
th M
ovan
ts
voic
ed s
ome
com
plai
nts
abou
t Rad
io a
nd T
V M
arti
in th
eir a
ppea
ls. S
ee A
ppel
late
Joi
nt B
rief o
f
Mov
ant M
edin
a an
d co
-def
enda
nts H
erna
ndez
, Gue
rrer
o an
d G
onza
lez
in C
ampa
1(c
onso
lidat
ed
Cas
e N
o. 0
3-11
0-87
, app
eal f
rom
den
ial o
f mot
ion
for n
ew tr
ial),
Atta
chm
ent C
, at 3
7 (“
dogg
ed
follo
win
g of
ju
rors
by
Sp
anis
hla
ngua
ge
med
ia
(incl
udin
g go
vern
men
t-spo
nsor
ed
Rad
io
Mar
ti”))
.See
als
oA
ppel
late
Brie
f of M
ovan
t Cam
pa in
Cam
pa 1
(con
solid
ated
Cas
e N
o. 0
3-11
0-
87, a
ppea
l fro
m d
enia
l of
mot
ion
for
new
tria
l), A
ttach
men
t D,a
t 65
(juro
rs f
ilmed
by
cam
era
crew
s of
Cha
nnel
23
and
Rad
io M
arti,
“tw
o ve
hem
ently
ant
i-Cas
tro S
pani
sh l
angu
age
new
s
orga
niza
tions
”).T
he a
dver
sity
of M
ovan
ts to
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
was
wel
l kno
wn
at th
e
time
of tr
ial a
nd th
e di
rect
app
eal.
In th
e fa
ce o
f th
is r
ecor
d, M
ovan
ts c
anno
t sho
w “
caus
e” to
have
del
ayed
cla
ims a
bout
Rad
io a
nd T
V M
arti,
and
the
OC
B’s
supp
osed
“pro
paga
nda”
pro
gram
until
yea
rs a
fter
thei
r ap
peal
s. Ev
en t
he p
rem
ise
that
Mov
ants
wer
e pr
even
ted
by e
xter
nalit
ies
from
kno
win
g th
e ad
ditio
nal
fact
tha
t so
me
Rad
io a
nd T
V M
arti
com
men
tato
rs a
nd p
rogr
am
parti
cipa
nts
also
wer
e lo
cal j
ourn
alis
ts is
que
stio
nabl
e. A
s th
e M
iam
i Her
ald
artic
le th
ey re
ly o
n
note
dof
Mov
ants
’ em
ploy
er,s
ee A
ttach
men
t A, “
The
gove
rnm
ent o
f C
uba
has
long
con
tend
ed
that
som
e So
uth
Flor
ida
Span
ish-
lang
uage
jour
nalis
ts w
ere
on th
e fe
dera
l pay
roll.
”
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 21
of 6
1
22
Even
if
Mov
ants
had
cau
se n
ot t
o ha
ve d
isco
vere
d th
e pa
ymen
ts t
o th
e si
x jo
urna
lists
until
afte
r th
e M
iam
i H
eral
d 20
06 a
rticl
e, t
hat
info
rmat
ion
does
not
bea
r th
e en
orm
ous
and
uniq
ue s
igni
fican
ce M
ovan
ts f
reig
ht it
with
. Rat
her,
it w
ould
be
at m
ost “
evid
ence
dis
cove
red
late
r [th
at] m
ight
als
o ha
ve su
ppor
ted
or st
reng
then
ed”
clai
ms e
ither
act
ually
mad
e, o
r cap
able
of
havi
ng b
een
mad
e, a
t tri
al a
nd o
n di
rect
app
eal,
whi
ch,
asM
cCle
skey
v.
Zant
tea
ches
, is
impe
rmis
sibl
e as
a b
asis
for c
olla
tera
l rel
ief,
467
U.S
. at 4
98. I
ndee
d, M
ovan
ts u
se th
eir c
laim
in
just
tha
t w
ay,
as a
mot
ion
to r
econ
side
r th
e ch
ange
-of-
venu
e is
sues
tha
t ha
ve a
lread
y be
en
exte
nsiv
ely
litig
ated
. For
inst
ance
, Mov
ants
arg
ue, D
E/LM
5:1
0-11
, 21;
DE/
RC
1-2
:13-
14, t
hat
the
juro
rs w
ere
hara
ssed
and
frig
hten
ed b
y de
mon
stra
tions
and
by
a m
edia
blit
z. T
hey
argu
ed
sim
ilarly
on
appe
al, s
ee 2
003
WL
2524
5480
at *
35-*
36; 2
003
WL
2524
5464
at *
3;
2005
WL
4638
012
at S
ectio
n IV
(1) [
no st
ar p
agin
atio
n]; 2
006
WL
2252
119
at *
7, *
13-*
14; A
ttach
men
t C
at 3
7,70
; Atta
chm
ent D
at 6
4-65
.22Th
e El
even
th C
ircui
trej
ecte
d th
e ar
gum
ent,
findi
ng th
atth
e
trial
cou
rt “m
aint
aine
d st
rict
cont
rol
over
the
pro
ceed
ings
by
empl
oyin
g va
rious
cur
ativ
e
mea
sure
sto
insu
late
the
jury
from
any
out
side
influ
ence
, fro
m th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e tri
al, ,
, , T
he
cour
t fie
rcel
y gu
arde
d th
e ju
ry fr
om o
utsi
de in
trusi
ons
. . .
The
cour
t too
k ex
tra s
teps
to in
sula
te
the
juro
rs d
urin
g th
eir d
elib
erat
ions
.” C
ampa
2,4
59 F
.3d
at 1
149.
Mov
ants
do
not,
and
cann
ot,
expl
ain
how
or w
hy th
e fa
ct th
at th
e B
BG
pai
d a
hand
ful o
f jou
rnal
ists
to b
e pa
nelis
ts o
n R
adio
Mar
ti an
d TV
Mar
tish
ows
wou
ld c
hang
e th
e ap
pella
te c
ourt’
s an
alys
is, o
r wou
ld u
ndo
the
trial
cour
t’s c
aref
ul a
nd su
cces
sful
mea
sure
s to
prot
ect t
he ju
ry.
22So
me
of t
hese
app
ella
te b
riefs
wer
e fil
ed b
y M
ovan
ts’
co-d
efen
dant
s; h
owev
er,
they
co-
adop
ted
one
anot
her’
s br
iefs
. See
200
3 W
L 25
2454
79 a
t *vi
ii -*
ix (M
ovan
t Med
ina
adop
ts c
o-de
fend
ants
’ br
iefs
); 20
03 W
L 25
2454
78 a
t *xv
i -*x
vii (
Mov
ant C
ampa
ado
pts
co-d
efen
dant
s’
brie
fs).
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 22
of 6
1
23
D. P
roce
dura
l iss
ues:
Pre
judi
ce
Inde
ed,
as d
iscu
ssed
sup
ra,
Mov
ants
’ in
abili
ty t
o sh
ow p
reju
dice
from
the
BB
G
paym
ents
, as
requ
ired
by F
rady
,is
fata
l to
thei
r cla
im. “
To e
stab
lish
prej
udic
e, a
pet
ition
er ‘m
ust
shou
lder
the
bur
den
of s
how
ing,
not
mer
ely
that
the
err
ors
at h
is t
rial
crea
ted
a po
ssib
ility
of
prej
udic
e, b
ut t
hat
they
wor
ked
to h
is a
ctua
land
sub
stan
tial
disa
dvan
tage
, inf
ectin
g hi
s en
tire
trial
with
err
or o
fco
nstit
utio
nal
dim
ensi
ons,’
” G
lass
v. W
illia
ms,
2009
WL
9753
66, *
*1 (
11th
Cir.
200
9),
quot
ing
Frad
y.B
ut h
ere
ther
e w
ere
no e
rror
s at
Mov
ants
’ tri
al,
as t
he E
leve
nth
Circ
uit f
ound
, par
ticul
arly
in th
e re
alm
on
whi
ch M
ovan
ts w
ould
re-
focu
s: th
e fa
irnes
s, la
ck o
f
bias
and
tain
t, an
d im
parti
ality
of t
he ju
ry. N
or d
o M
ovan
ts s
how
how
the
fact
that
the
BB
G p
aid
jour
nalis
ts to
app
ear o
n R
adio
Mar
ti an
d TV
Mar
ti pr
ogra
ms
dire
cted
for b
road
cast
tow
ard
Cub
a
wor
ked
to t
heir
“act
ual
and
subs
tant
ial
disa
dvan
tage
,” i
nfec
ting
thei
r en
tire
trial
with
err
or.
Inde
ed, M
ovan
t doe
s no
t eve
n cl
aim
err
or b
y th
e co
urt,
but r
athe
r tha
t cou
nsel
wou
ld h
ave
done
certa
in th
ings
diff
eren
tly, h
ad th
ey k
now
n of
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
. For
inst
ance
, Mov
ants
sta
te,
DE/
LM 5
:21,
DE/
RC
1-2
:8, 2
2-24
, tha
t had
they
kno
wn
of th
e B
BG
pay
men
ts, t
hey
wou
ld h
ave
mov
ed to
seq
uest
er th
e ju
ry. B
ut s
pecu
latin
g ov
er w
hat t
hey
mig
ht h
ave
done
diff
eren
tly23
23M
ovan
ts m
ay b
e ad
verti
ng to
sta
ndar
ds fo
r ine
ffec
tive
assi
stan
ce o
f cou
nsel
, whi
ch c
an w
iden
th
e sc
ope
of is
sues
con
side
red
in a
§22
55 p
etiti
on. A
s di
scus
sed
infr
a, M
ovan
ts’ c
laim
s th
at n
ot
know
ing
abou
tth
e B
BG
pay
men
ts r
ende
red
them
ine
ffec
tive
as c
ouns
el a
re l
egal
ly u
nsou
nd.
Even
whe
n in
effe
ctiv
e as
sist
ance
of
coun
sel
is a
pro
cedu
rally
app
ropr
iate
cla
im,
it is
not
a
vehi
cle
mer
ely
to p
roje
ct h
inds
ight
scen
ario
s, in
the
abse
nce
of p
reju
dice
. See
Wat
ers
v. T
hom
as,
46 F
.3d
1506
, 151
4 (1
1th
Cir.
199
5) (
en b
anc)
(“T
he w
ides
prea
d us
e of
the
tact
ic o
f at
tack
ing
trial
cou
nsel
by
show
ing
wha
t ‘m
ight
hav
e be
en’ p
rove
s th
at n
othi
ng is
cle
arer
than
hin
dsig
ht –
exce
pt p
erha
ps th
e ru
le th
at w
e w
ill n
ot ju
dge
trial
cou
nsel
’s p
erfo
rman
ce th
roug
h hi
ndsi
ght.”
).is n
ot
the
sam
e as
est
ablis
hing
pre
judi
ce, a
nd th
ey m
ake
no a
rticu
latio
n of
how
they
wer
e pr
ejud
iced
by
not h
avin
g a
sequ
este
red
jury
. Th
ere
is n
o ev
iden
ce, o
r bas
is to
bel
ieve
, tha
t the
uns
eque
ster
ed
jury
was
tam
pere
d w
ithor
tai
nted
, an
d C
ampa
2co
nclu
ded
that
the
tria
l co
urt
prop
erly
and
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 23
of 6
1
24
suff
icie
ntly
pro
tect
ed th
e ju
ry f
rom
intru
sion
and
inst
ruct
ed th
em a
bout
not
rea
ding
or
liste
ning
to m
edia
acc
ount
s, w
ith n
othi
ng t
o su
gges
t vi
olat
ion
of t
hat
inst
ruct
ion.
M
ovan
ts’
hypo
thes
is
that
the
trial
cou
rt m
ight
hav
e se
ques
tere
d th
e ju
ry, o
r ev
en g
rant
ed M
ovan
ts’
chan
ge-o
f-ve
nue
requ
est,
base
d on
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
is n
ot o
nly
illog
ical
,24
E. C
laim
of s
truc
tura
l err
or
it is
als
o irr
elev
ant:
As
the
cour
t of
appe
als
foun
d, M
ovan
ts g
ota
fair
trial
with
the
uns
eque
ster
ed j
ury.
Mov
ants
suff
ered
no
prej
udic
e an
d th
ey a
re e
ntitl
ed to
no
relie
f. Se
e, e
.g.,
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Ent
reki
n, 5
08 F
.2d
1328
,
1330
(8th
Cir.
197
4)(§
2255
rel
ief
prop
erly
den
ied,
not
with
stan
ding
cla
im o
f pr
ejud
icia
l pre
trial
publ
icity
, w
here
tria
l co
urt
reco
gniz
ed t
he p
ossi
bilit
y of
pre
judi
ce a
nd c
aref
ully
scr
eene
d
pros
pect
ive
juro
rs to
obt
ain
impa
rtial
ven
ire).
One
who
has
had
a fa
ir tri
al is
not
ent
itled
to a
new
trial
.
Taci
tly c
once
ding
thei
r in
abili
ty to
sho
w F
rady
pre
judi
ce, M
ovan
ts n
ever
cite
the
case
nor t
ry to
mat
ch th
eir
argu
men
ts to
its
stan
dard
. Ins
tead
, the
y ei
ther
pro
clai
m, w
ith n
o an
alys
is,
that
ther
e w
as p
reju
dice
, see
DE/
LM 5
:9 n
.1, o
r arg
ue th
at th
is is
one
of t
he v
ery
rare
cas
es w
here
prej
udic
e ne
ed n
ot b
e sh
own
beca
use
they
wer
e de
priv
ed o
f due
pro
cess
in a
man
ner q
ualif
ying
as s
truct
ural
err
or, D
E/R
C 1
-2:1
4. A
stru
ctur
al e
rror
is “
a de
fect
aff
ectin
g th
e fr
amew
ork
with
in
whi
ch th
e tri
al p
roce
eds,
rath
er th
an si
mpl
y an
err
or in
the
trial
pro
cess
itse
lf,”
John
son
v. U
nite
d
Stat
es, 5
20 U
.S. 4
61, 4
68 (1
997)
. It a
pplie
s “o
nly
in a
ver
y lim
ited
clas
s of
cas
es,”
id.,
none
of
24It
is il
logi
cal n
ot o
nly
to c
onje
ctur
e th
at th
e co
urt m
ight
hav
e gr
ante
d se
ques
tratio
n, o
r cha
nged
ve
nue,
on
such
a s
lim r
eed,
but
als
o be
caus
e th
ere
is n
o lo
gica
l ne
xus
betw
een
the
BB
G
paym
ents
and
the
ven
ire a
nd j
ury
circ
umst
ance
s th
e co
urt
was
ask
ed t
o as
sess
. Tha
t is
, ev
en
unde
r M
ovan
ts’
mos
t lu
rid s
pecu
latio
ns t
hat
som
ehow
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
sha
ped
the
new
s m
edia
that
rea
ched
the
venu
e, th
e ne
ws
stor
ies
and
artic
les
are
a hi
stor
ical
arti
fact
, kno
wn
and
know
able
to M
ovan
ts a
t th
e tim
e of
the
ir tri
al,
rega
rdle
ss o
f th
eir
gene
sis.
How
new
s m
edia
im
pact
ed th
e ve
nue
is u
ncha
nged
by
Mov
ants
’ spe
cula
tion
of B
BG
influ
ence
. If t
he ju
ry w
as n
ot
tain
ted
and
Mov
ants
wer
e no
t pre
judi
ced
by th
e m
edia
acc
ount
s, th
e fu
ndin
g so
urce
beh
ind
the
med
ia a
ccou
nts c
ould
not
hav
e al
tere
d th
at fa
ct.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 24
of 6
1
25
them
rem
otel
y lik
e M
ovan
ts’.
Bec
ause
the
case
s ar
e so
rar
e, th
ey c
an b
e ca
talo
gued
, and
Jud
ge
Car
nes
mad
e su
ch a
cat
alog
ue in
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Rod
rigu
ez, 4
06 F
.3d
1261
, 126
8-12
69
(11th
2005
)(C
arne
s, J.,
con
curr
ing)
, dra
wn
from
and
bui
ldin
g up
on A
rizo
na v
. Ful
min
ante
, 499
U.S
.
279
(199
1). W
ithou
t rep
eatin
g th
e ca
talo
gue,
we
note
that
all
invo
lve
som
e gr
ave
defe
ct in
the
judi
cial
pro
ceed
ing
itsel
f,su
ch a
sde
priv
atio
n of
righ
t to
coun
sel,
raci
ally
invi
diou
s ex
clus
ion
of
gran
d ju
rors
, se
rious
ly i
ncor
rect
crit
ical
jur
y in
stru
ctio
n, a
dmis
sion
of
evid
ence
obt
aine
d in
viol
atio
n of
the
Four
th A
men
dmen
t.H
ere,
by
cont
rast
, Mov
ants
rely
for t
heir
clai
m o
n ac
tion
by
an e
ntity
, the
BB
G, f
ar r
emov
ed f
rom
the
judi
cial
pro
ceed
ing,
with
no
disc
erni
ble
nexu
s to
the
proc
eedi
ng. E
ven
unde
r M
ovan
ts’
conj
ured
theo
ry –
that
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
eith
er d
elib
erat
ely
or i
ncid
enta
lly i
nflu
ence
d w
hat
a ha
ndfu
l of
jou
rnal
ists
pub
lishe
d ap
art
from
the
ir R
adio
/TV
Mar
tiw
ork
–th
ere
still
is
no a
rgua
ble
nexu
s to
the
pro
ceed
ings
diff
eren
t fr
omth
e on
e th
at
Cam
pa 2
alre
ady
cons
ider
ed,
that
is,
whe
ther
the
ven
ue w
as p
resu
mpt
ivel
y pr
ejud
iced
, an
d
whe
ther
the
jur
y w
as p
rope
rly a
nd f
airly
sele
cted
, in
stru
cted
and
ins
ulat
ed f
rom
out
side
intru
sion
s and
pub
licity
.
Mov
ant C
ampa
cite
s th
ree
case
s in
sup
port
of h
is “
stru
ctur
al e
rror
” ar
gum
ent,
DE/
RC
1-
2:14
.In
Este
s v.
Tex
as, 3
81 U
.S. 5
32, 5
78(1
965)
, the
def
enda
nt w
as d
enie
d du
e pr
oces
s w
here
cour
t pr
ocee
ding
s w
ere
cond
ucte
d in
a “
carn
ival
atm
osph
ere,
” w
ithth
e co
urtro
om a
mas
s of
wire
s, TV
cam
eras
, mic
roph
ones
and
pho
togr
aphe
rs, w
ith c
able
s sn
akin
g ac
ross
the
cour
troom
and
pres
s m
icro
phon
es o
n th
e ju
dge’
s be
nch,
bea
med
at
the
jury
box
and
at
coun
sel’s
tab
le.
Cam
pa 2
expr
essl
y co
nsid
ered
Est
esan
d fo
und
that
Mov
ant’s
tria
l “‘c
ompo
rted
with
the
high
est
stan
dard
s of
fairn
ess
and
prof
essi
onal
ism
’” a
nd “
was
not
hing
like
” Es
tes.
Cam
pa 2
, 459
F.3
dat
1149
. Mov
ant a
lso
cite
s C
aper
ton
v. A
.T. M
asse
y C
oal,
Co.
, 129
S.C
t. 22
52 (2
009)
and
Sul
livan
v. L
ouis
iana
, 508
U.S
. 275
(199
3), b
ut th
ose
also
are
dis
tingu
isha
ble
as in
volv
ing
defe
cts
in th
e
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 25
of 6
1
26
judi
cial
mec
hani
sm i
tsel
f. Fu
rther
,st
ruct
ural
err
or r
equi
res
muc
h m
ore
than
nex
usan
d is
rese
rved
for
rar
e an
d ex
traor
dina
ry c
ases
, as
Jud
ge C
arne
s po
ints
out
.Su
lliva
n in
volv
ed a
n
egre
giou
sly,
and
con
cede
dly,
bad
jury
inst
ruct
ion;
Cap
erto
n in
volv
ed a
judg
e w
ho h
ad re
ceiv
ed
mill
ions
of d
olla
rs in
cam
paig
n co
ntrib
utio
ns fr
om a
litig
ant’s
prin
cipa
l and
did
not
recu
sew
hen
he s
houl
d ha
ve. M
ovan
t Cam
pa fa
ults
the
gove
rnm
ent’s
ana
lysi
s of
Cap
erto
n, li
kely
repl
ying
to
the
gove
rnm
ent’s
res
pons
e to
a s
imila
r ar
gum
ent
and
cita
tion
by M
ovan
t’s c
o-de
fend
ant
Her
nand
ez in
Ger
ardo
Her
nand
ez v
. Uni
ted
Stat
es, C
ase
No.
10-
2195
7-cv
-LEN
AR
D.25
25Th
e go
vern
men
t res
pond
ed to
Her
nand
ez’s
sim
ilar c
laim
abo
ut B
BG
pay
men
ts to
jour
nalis
ts,
at D
ocke
t Ent
ry 2
8, p
ages
93-
100,
in G
erar
do H
erna
ndez
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, Cas
e N
o. 1
0-21
957-
cv-L
ENA
RD
. Th
e go
vern
men
t re
spec
tfully
ref
ers
the
cour
t to
tha
t re
spon
se a
s to
Mov
ants
’ cl
aim
s as w
ell,
and
inco
rpor
ates
her
e by
refe
renc
e its
arg
umen
ts st
ated
ther
e.
Mov
ant
Cam
pa is
inco
rrec
t; th
e go
vern
men
t cor
rect
ly n
oted
that
in C
aper
ton
ther
e w
as a
dire
ct n
exus
betw
een
the
clai
med
def
ect –
judg
e fa
iled
to re
cuse
–an
d th
e ju
dici
al p
roce
edin
g ov
er w
hich
the
judg
e pr
esid
ed (o
n ap
peal
), w
here
as h
ere
ther
e is
no
nexu
s be
twee
n M
ovan
ts’ t
rial a
nd th
e B
BG
payi
ng jo
urna
lists
to a
ppea
r on
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti.
Cap
erto
n w
as d
ecid
ed a
fter
Judg
e
Car
nes
mad
e hi
s ca
talo
gue
in U
nite
d St
ates
v. [
Vlad
imir]
Rod
rigue
z, su
pra,
but
the
Ele
vent
h
Circ
uit h
ad o
ccas
ion
to n
ote
in a
late
r cas
e, U
nite
d St
ates
v. [
Alic
ia]
Rodr
igue
z,62
7 F.
3d 1
372,
1382
(11
thC
ir. 2
010)
, tha
t the
Sup
rem
e C
ourt’
s ho
ldin
g in
Cap
erto
nw
as n
arro
w, b
ased
on
the
extre
me
fact
s of
tha
t ca
se w
here
the
pre
sidi
ng j
udge
had
rec
eive
d a
mul
ti-m
illio
n do
llar
cam
paig
n co
ntrib
utio
n fr
om a
liti
gant
, and
tha
t th
e Su
prem
e C
ourt
“lim
ited
its h
oldi
ng t
o th
e
‘ext
raor
dina
ry
situ
atio
n’
whe
re
the
‘pro
babi
lity
of
actu
al
[judi
cial
] bi
as
rises
to
an
unco
nstit
utio
nal
leve
l.” C
aper
ton
also
had
a u
niqu
e ci
rcum
stan
ce n
ot p
rese
nt h
ere:
The
re, t
he
judg
e’s s
tudi
ed c
oncl
usio
n th
at h
e w
as n
ot a
ctua
lly b
iase
d is
subj
ectiv
e, “
not o
ne th
at th
e la
w c
an
easi
ly s
uper
inte
nd o
r rev
iew
,” 1
29 S
.Ct.
at 2
263.
Her
e, b
y co
ntra
st, t
he v
alue
at i
ssue
–w
heth
er
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 26
of 6
1
27
Mov
ants
had
a f
air
trial
, bef
ore
a fa
ir ju
ry –
can
be, a
nd i
ndee
d ha
s be
en, s
uper
inte
nded
and
revi
ewed
, and
foun
d to
pas
s mus
ter,
byth
e El
even
th C
ircui
t in
Cam
pa 2
.
Fina
lly,
with
reg
ard
to M
ovan
t C
ampa
’s s
truct
ural
-err
or a
rgum
ent,
he o
mits
to
cite
anot
herc
ase
that
was
cite
d by
co-
defe
ndan
t Her
nand
ez: S
mith
v. P
hilli
ps, 4
55 U
.S. 2
09 (1
982)
.
In S
mith
the
Supr
eme
Cou
rt re
vers
edha
beas
rel
ief t
hat h
ad b
een
gran
ted
on th
e pr
emis
e th
at a
juro
r w
ho h
ad a
pplie
d fo
r a
job
at th
e pr
osec
utor
’s o
ffic
e m
ust b
e pr
esum
ed b
iase
d. R
ever
sing
,
the
Supr
eme
Cou
rt no
ted
“tha
t due
pro
cess
doe
s no
t req
uire
a n
ew tr
ial e
very
tim
e a
juro
r ha
s
been
pla
ced
in a
pot
entia
lly c
ompr
omis
ing
situ
atio
n. W
ere
that
the
rul
e, f
ew t
rials
wou
ld b
e
cons
titut
iona
lly a
ccep
tabl
e.”
455
U.S
. at
217.
Yet
Mov
ant
wou
ld s
et t
he b
ar e
ven
low
er,
dem
andi
ng a
new
tria
l whe
re th
ere
is n
o fa
ct-s
peci
fic b
asis
to p
resu
me
juro
r bia
s, as
ther
e w
as in
Smith
, and
whe
re th
e El
even
th C
ircui
t has
alre
ady
dete
rmin
ed th
at th
ere
was
no
juro
r bia
s.N
or
do M
ovan
ts c
ite a
ny c
ase
whe
re s
truct
ural
err
or h
as b
een
appl
ied
in t
he c
onte
xt o
f a
§225
5
petit
ion,
with
its F
rady
requ
irem
ent o
f act
ual p
reju
dice
.
F. B
rady
cla
im
Mov
ants
als
o ar
gue
that
the
pro
secu
tion
was
req
uire
d to
dis
clos
e to
the
m t
he B
BG
paym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
, citi
ng B
rady
v. M
aryl
and,
373
U.S
. 83
(196
3), U
nite
d St
ates
v. B
agle
y,
473
U.S
. 667
(198
5),a
nd S
tric
kler
v. G
reen
e, 5
27 U
.S. 2
63 (1
999)
.Th
eir c
laim
is in
corr
ect.
Ther
ear
e th
ree
esse
ntia
l el
emen
ts t
o a
Brad
ycl
aim
: (1
) th
e pr
osec
utio
n su
ppre
ssed
evid
ence
; (2
) th
e ev
iden
ce w
as f
avor
able
to th
e de
fens
e; a
nd (
3) th
e ev
iden
ce w
as m
ater
ial t
o
eith
er g
uilt
or p
unis
hmen
t. M
urph
y v.
Joh
nson
, 205
F.3
d 80
9, 8
14 n
.2 (
5th
Cir.
200
0); s
ee a
lso
Stri
ckle
r v. G
reen
e, 5
27 U
.S. 2
63, 2
81 (1
999)
;26
26St
rick
ler’
s w
ordi
ng i
s di
ffer
ent,
but
the
thre
e el
emen
ts a
re t
he s
ame:
“Th
ere
are
thre
e co
mpo
nent
s of
a tr
ue B
rady
vio
latio
n: T
he e
vide
nce
at is
sue
mus
t be
favo
rabl
e to
the
accu
sed,
ei
ther
bec
ause
it
is e
xcul
pato
ry,
or b
ecau
se i
t is
im
peac
hing
; th
at e
vide
nce
mus
t ha
ve b
een
John
son
v. A
laba
ma,
256
F.3
d 11
56, 1
189
(11t
h
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 27
of 6
1
28
Cir.
200
1). M
ater
ialit
y, fo
r Bra
dypu
rpos
es, e
quat
es to
pre
judi
ce: “
To d
emon
stra
te p
reju
dice
, the
petit
ione
r m
ust .
. . c
onvi
nce
us th
at th
ere
is a
rea
sona
ble
prob
abili
ty th
at th
e re
sult
ofth
e tri
al
wou
ld h
ave
been
diff
eren
t if t
he [a
llege
dly
supp
ress
ed it
ems]
had
bee
n di
sclo
sed
to th
e de
fens
e.
In o
ther
wor
ds, t
he q
uest
ion
is w
heth
er th
e fa
vora
ble
evid
ence
cou
ld re
ason
ably
be
take
n to
put
the
who
le c
ase
in su
ch a
diff
eren
t lig
ht a
s to
unde
rmin
e co
nfid
ence
in th
e ve
rdic
t.” H
igh
v. H
ead,
209
F.3d
125
7, 1
267
(11t
h C
ir.20
00) (
cita
tions
and
inte
rnal
quo
tatio
n m
arks
om
itted
).
Mur
phy,
Joh
nson
and
Stri
ckle
rlis
t the
ele
men
ts in
diff
eren
t ord
er, b
ut it
mat
ters
not
, for
Mov
ants
hav
eth
e bu
rden
to e
stab
lish
each
, and
if M
ovan
ts fa
ilto
sho
w a
ny o
ne o
f the
thre
e, th
e
cour
t ne
ed n
ot c
onsi
der
the
othe
r tw
o. S
ee W
eeks
v.
Jone
s, 26
F.3
d 10
30,
1047
(11
th C
ir.
1994
)(ha
beas
pet
ition
er m
ust
dem
onst
rate
thr
ee t
hing
s to
est
ablis
h Br
ady
viol
atio
n);
Uni
ted
Stat
esv.
McM
ahon
, 715
F.2
d 49
8, 5
01 (1
1th
Cir.
198
3) (B
rady
cla
iman
ts m
ust d
emon
stra
te th
ree
thin
gs);
Uni
ted
Stat
esv.
Edw
ards
, 442
F.3
d 25
8, 2
67 (5
th C
ir. 2
006)
(“pa
rties
alle
ging
a B
rady
viol
atio
n ha
ve t
he b
urde
n of
est
ablis
hing
all
thre
e pr
ongs
of
the
Brad
yte
st”)
; Id
. at
267
n.8
(fai
lure
to s
how
evi
denc
e su
ppre
ssed
, so
no n
eed
to a
ddre
ss w
heth
er e
vide
nce
mat
eria
l); N
elso
n
v. N
agle
, 995
F.2
d 15
49, 1
555
(11t
h C
ir. 1
993)
(“W
e w
ill n
ot a
ddre
ss th
e fir
st tw
o pr
ongs
of t
he
[Bra
dy] t
est b
ecau
se w
e fin
d th
at th
e ev
iden
ce w
as n
ot m
ater
ial”
). M
ovan
ts
here
do
no
t, an
d
cann
ot, e
stab
lish
any
of th
e th
ree
pron
gs.
i. Fi
rst B
rady
ele
men
t: su
ppre
ssio
n
As
for t
he s
uppr
essi
on p
rong
, whe
re th
e pr
osec
utio
n do
es n
ot p
osse
ss in
form
atio
n, th
ere
is n
o su
ppre
ssio
n an
d th
e pr
ong
is n
ot m
et. H
ere,
the
Mov
ants
cla
im th
at in
form
atio
n ab
out t
he
BB
G p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
was
hel
d by
the
BB
G. M
ovan
ts d
o no
t cla
im, i
nan
y bu
t the
mos
t
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
supp
ress
ed b
y th
e St
ate,
eith
er w
illfu
lly o
r ina
dver
tent
ly; a
nd p
reju
dice
mus
thav
e en
sued
.” Id
. at
281-
282.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 28
of 6
1
29
vagu
ely
indi
rect
way
,tha
t the
pro
secu
tors
or t
he p
rose
cutio
n te
am h
ad th
is in
form
atio
n or
kne
w
abou
t the
BB
G’s
pay
men
ts.27
Post
-Kyl
es, t
he E
leve
nth
Circ
uit
has
cont
inue
d to
arti
cula
te a
nd r
ely
on t
he c
once
pt o
f
limiti
ng th
e pr
osec
utio
n’s
disc
losu
re d
uty
to in
form
atio
n kn
own
or p
osse
ssed
by
the
pros
ecut
ion
team
wor
king
on
the
crim
inal
cas
e. S
ee M
oon
v. H
ead,
285
F.3
d 13
01 (1
1thC
ir. 2
002)
. Mer
os’s
stat
emen
t th
at B
rady
app
lies
only
to
info
rmat
ion
poss
esse
d by
the
pro
secu
tor
or a
nyon
e ov
er
who
m h
e ha
s au
thor
ity c
ontin
ues
to b
e re
lied
on a
nd c
ited
by t
he E
leve
nth
Circ
uit.
See,
e.g
.,
Whi
le a
pro
secu
tor’
s du
ty to
dis
clos
e go
es b
eyon
d th
e pr
osec
utor
’s
pers
onal
aw
aren
ess
of g
over
nmen
t pos
sess
ion
of in
form
atio
n, th
at d
uty,
and
the
impu
tatio
n of
know
ledg
e to
the
pro
secu
tor,
does
not
ext
end
limitl
essl
y to
all
reac
hes
of t
he g
over
nmen
t, as
Mov
ants
sug
gest
or
impl
y. S
ee D
E/LM
5:1
9 n.
5; D
E/R
C 5
:7-8
, 21
n.6.
Rat
her,
“Bra
dy a
nd it
s
prog
eny
appl
y to
evi
denc
e po
sses
sed
by a
[fed
eral
] dis
trict
’s ‘p
rose
cutio
n te
am,’
whi
ch in
clud
es
both
inv
estig
ativ
e an
d pr
osec
utor
ial
pers
onne
l. Br
ady,
the
n,
appl
ies
only
to
info
rmat
ion
poss
esse
d by
the
pros
ecut
or o
r any
one
over
who
m h
e ha
s au
thor
ity.”
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Mer
os, 8
66
F.2d
130
4, 1
309
(11th
Cir.
198
9). M
eros
pre
date
s K
yles
v. W
hitle
y, 5
14 U
.S. 4
19 (
1995
), bu
t
Kyl
es i
s no
t to
the
con
trary
, ho
ldin
g th
at a
pro
secu
tor
“has
a d
uty
to l
earn
of
any
favo
rabl
e
evid
ence
kno
wn
to t
he o
ther
s ac
ting
on t
he g
over
nmen
t’s b
ehal
f in
the
cas
e, i
nclu
ding
the
polic
e,”
id. a
t 438
(em
phas
is a
dded
).M
ovan
ts c
ite K
yles
,inc
ludi
ngto
this
pas
sage
, see
DE/
LM
5:19
n.5
; DE/
RC
1-2
:8, 2
1 n.
6, b
ut s
till a
rgue
for a
gov
ernm
ent-w
ide
swee
p of
info
rmat
ion
to b
e
impu
ted
to th
e pr
osec
utor
, ess
entia
lly re
adin
g th
e em
phas
ized
wor
ds o
ut o
f the
cas
e.
27A
lthou
gh M
ovan
t C
ampa
say
s, at
DE/
RC
1-2
:3,
that
the
Exe
cutiv
e B
ranc
h of
the
fed
eral
go
vern
men
t pro
secu
ted
him
whi
le s
imul
tane
ousl
y pa
ying
jour
nalis
ts, a
nd th
at “
[t]he
pro
secu
tion
neve
r di
sclo
sed
this
fac
t, ev
en a
s it
oppo
sed”
the
cha
nge-
of-v
enue
mot
ion,
he
neve
r di
rect
ly
clai
ms
that
the
pros
ecut
ion
knew
the
fact
of t
he B
BG
pay
men
ts. M
ovan
t Med
ina
spea
ks o
f “th
e go
vern
men
t’s c
once
alm
ent o
f its
act
iviti
es,”
DE/
LM 5
:13,
but
, sig
nific
antly
, with
out s
peci
fyin
g th
e pr
osec
utio
n te
am; s
ee a
lso
id. a
t 19,
20
(“th
ere
is n
o do
ubt t
he g
over
nmen
t –th
e ve
ry p
arty
to
the
unde
rlyin
g cr
imin
al c
ase
–en
gage
d in
frau
d on
the
cour
t”).
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 29
of 6
1
30
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Nar
anjo
, 634
F.3
d 11
98, 1
212
(11th
Cir.
201
1). M
ovan
ts’ r
elia
nce
onM
artin
ez v
.
Wai
nwri
ght,
621
F.2d
184
(5th
Cir.
198
9), i
s al
so m
ispl
aced
;sub
sequ
ent c
ases
in b
oth
the
Fifth
and
Elev
enth
Circ
uits
rec
ogni
ze th
at M
artin
ezdo
es n
ot e
xpan
d th
e du
ty to
kno
w a
nd d
iscl
ose
info
rmat
ion
limitl
essl
y th
roug
hout
the
gove
rnm
ent.
See,
e.g
., U
nite
d St
ates
v. W
ebst
er, 3
92 F
.3d
787,
798
n.2
0 (5
thC
ir. 2
004)
(citi
ng M
artin
ez v
. Wai
nwri
ght,
but a
lso
notin
g th
at “
ther
e ar
e lim
its
on t
he i
mpu
tatio
n of
kno
wle
dge
from
one
arm
of
the
gove
rnm
ent
to p
rose
cuto
rs”)
; Pa
rker
v.
Alle
n, 5
65 F
3d 1
258,
127
7 (1
1thC
ir. 2
009)
(citi
ng M
artin
ez v
. W
righ
t, bu
t qu
alify
ing
it an
d
findi
ng n
o Br
ady
viol
atio
n in
non
-dis
clos
ure
of in
form
atio
n he
ld b
y an
othe
r arm
of g
over
nmen
t).
Inde
ed, M
oon
v. H
ead
favo
rabl
y no
ted
othe
r ca
ses,
chie
fly i
n th
e Se
cond
Circ
uit,
that
mak
e th
e po
int t
hat a
gov
ernm
ent-w
ide
duty
of
know
ledg
e an
d di
sclo
sure
was
nei
ther
req
uire
d
nor
feas
ible
. See
285
F.3
d at
130
9-13
10, q
uotin
g U
nite
d St
ates
v. A
velli
no, 1
36 F
.3d
249,
255
(2nd
Cir.
199
8):
[K]n
owle
dge
on t
he p
art
of p
erso
ns e
mpl
oyed
by
a di
ffer
ent
offic
e of
the
go
vern
men
t doe
s no
t in
all i
nsta
nces
war
rant
the
impu
tatio
n of
kno
wle
dge
to th
e pr
osec
utor
, for
the
impo
sitio
n of
an
unlim
ited
duty
on
a pr
osec
utor
to in
quire
of
othe
r of
fices
not
wor
king
with
the
pro
secu
tor's
off
ice
on t
he c
ase
in q
uest
ion
wou
ld in
appr
opria
tely
requ
ire u
s to
ado
pt “
a m
onol
ithic
vie
w o
f gov
ernm
ent”
that
w
ould
“co
ndem
n th
e pr
osec
utio
n of
crim
inal
cas
es to
a st
ate
of p
aral
ysis
.”
See
also
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Q
uinn
, 44
5 F.
2d 9
40,
944
(2d
Cir.
1971
)(re
fusi
ngto
im
pute
the
know
ledg
e of
a F
lorid
a pr
osec
utor
to
an A
USA
in
New
Yor
k, a
nd r
ejec
ting
as “
com
plet
ely
unte
nabl
e [th
e] p
ositi
on t
hat
‘kno
wle
dge
of a
ny p
art
of t
he g
over
nmen
t is
equ
ival
ent
to
know
ledg
e on
the
part
of th
is p
rose
cuto
r’”)
.Sut
ton
v. B
ell,
2011
WL
1225
891
(E.D
. TN
. 201
1)
also
mad
e th
is p
oint
, and
cite
d th
ese
case
s.Id
.at *
14-*
15. I
t als
o po
inte
d ou
t tha
t the
rare
cas
es
whe
re c
ourts
hav
e im
pute
d to
the
pros
ecut
ion
info
rmat
ion
from
out
side
the
team
’s fi
les
“usu
ally
conc
ern
cond
uctin
g cr
imin
al
back
grou
nd
chec
ks
on
the
gove
rnm
ent’s
ke
y co
oper
atin
g
witn
esse
s.”Id
. at *
14. E
ven
case
s w
here
cou
rts r
efus
e to
impu
te k
now
ledg
e in
volv
e in
form
atio
n
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 30
of 6
1
31
abou
t tria
l witn
esse
s, as
in S
utto
n,M
oon
v. H
ead,
Qui
nn,P
arke
r v.
Alle
nan
d ot
hers
.See
als
o
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. M
orris
, 80
F.3
d 11
51,
1168
-116
9 (7
thC
ir. 1
996)
(ref
usin
g to
im
pute
to
pros
ecut
or k
now
ledg
e, a
nd d
uty
to d
iscl
ose,
pot
entia
lly e
xcul
pato
ry i
nfor
mat
ion
poss
esse
d by
othe
r fe
dera
l ag
enci
es i
ndep
ende
ntly
inv
estig
atin
g si
mila
r or
rel
ated
mat
ter)
; U
nite
d St
ates
v.
Web
ster
, su
pra,
392
F.3d
at
798
n.20
(co
nclu
ding
tha
t pr
osec
utor
s di
d no
t co
nstru
ctiv
ely
poss
ess,
or im
pute
dly
know
, arg
uabl
e im
peac
hmen
t mat
eria
l fr
ompr
ior
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ju
stic
e
civi
l liti
gatio
n).
Mov
ants
, by
cont
rast
, pos
it co
nstru
ctiv
e po
sses
sion
, and
a d
uty
to d
iscl
ose,
far v
aste
r tha
n
anyt
hing
in th
ose
case
s: th
at is
, tha
t the
pro
secu
tion
was
requ
ired
to in
quire
of t
he e
ntire
fede
ral
gove
rnm
ent
for
anyt
hing
tha
t an
y fe
dera
l en
tity
was
doi
ng t
hat
mig
ht t
ouch
on
thei
r ca
se.
Furth
er, M
ovan
ts w
ould
ext
end
that
dut
y be
yond
just
fact
ual i
nfor
mat
ion
abou
t the
ir ch
arge
s to
even
the
ver
y at
tenu
ated
con
nect
ion
they
see
k to
mak
e th
at t
he B
BG
’s a
nd O
CB
’s e
ngag
ing
parti
cipa
nts
for
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
prog
ram
s im
pact
ed M
ovan
ts’
pros
ecut
ion.
Thi
s is
a
posi
tion
even
mor
e “c
ompl
etel
y un
tena
ble”
than
wha
tQui
nnor
the
othe
r cas
es p
roje
cted
.
The
BB
G i
s an
ind
epen
dent
fed
eral
age
ncy,
GA
O R
epor
t at
7.
The
Off
ice
of C
uba
Bro
adca
stin
g is
ove
rsee
n by
the
BB
G,
the
BB
G’s
Int
erna
tiona
l B
road
cast
ing
Bur
eau
and
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Sta
te O
ffic
e of
Insp
ecto
r Gen
eral
. GA
O R
epor
t at i
nsid
e co
ver,
36-3
8.Th
ey a
re
in n
o w
ay p
art o
f the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Jus
tice,
and
thei
r mis
sion
is n
ot la
w e
nfor
cem
ent.
Mov
ants
do n
ot c
laim
, and
pro
vide
no
subs
tant
iatio
n, th
at th
e B
BG
was
par
t of t
he p
rose
cutio
n te
am o
r the
crim
inal
inve
stig
atio
n or
pro
secu
tion.
Und
er a
ll th
e ap
plic
able
cas
elaw
, the
BB
G’s
mat
eria
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
are
not
impu
tabl
e to
the
kno
wle
dge
of t
he p
rose
cutio
n.28
28Si
mila
rly, t
he s
uppo
sed
faili
ngs
of th
e B
BG
, im
plie
d in
Mov
ants
’ arg
umen
ts a
bout
the
Smith
-M
undt
Act
and
Sen
. Zor
insk
y’s
rem
arks
on
the
pros
crip
tion
agai
nst d
omes
tic p
ropa
gand
a, w
ould
no
t be
impu
tabl
e to
the
pros
ecut
ion,
eve
n if
Mov
ants
cou
ld m
ake
out t
heir
very
sha
ky c
laim
of
The
first
pro
ng o
f th
e
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 31
of 6
1
32
Brad
yst
anda
rds
–su
ppre
ssio
n by
the
pros
ecut
ion
of in
form
atio
n in
thei
r ac
tual
or
cons
truct
ive
poss
essi
on –
is n
ot m
et.
Mov
ants
’ ar
gum
ents
tha
t th
e pr
osec
utor
s pe
rpet
rate
d a
frau
d on
the
cour
t, an
d th
at th
e
gove
rnm
ent
viol
ated
Loc
al R
ules
and
the
tria
l co
urt’s
gag
ord
ers
thro
ugh
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
,
also
fai
l fo
r th
e sa
me
reas
on,
and
base
d on
the
sam
e pr
eced
ents
, as
inf
orm
the
“pr
osec
utio
n
team
” co
ncep
t: K
now
ledg
e of
thos
e pa
ymen
ts c
anno
t be
impu
ted
to th
e pr
osec
utio
n te
am, a
nd
the
pros
ecut
ors
had
no d
uty
to le
arn
of o
r see
k ou
t suc
h fa
r-flu
ng in
form
atio
n no
t pos
sess
ed b
y
the
pros
ecut
ion
team
.
The
cour
t im
pose
d tw
o di
ffer
ent t
ypes
of g
ag o
rder
in th
is c
ase,
one
at t
he re
ques
t of t
he
gove
rnm
ent
and
one
at t
he r
eque
st o
f th
e de
fens
e. I
n O
ctob
er 1
998
the
gove
rnm
ent
soug
ht
enfo
rcem
ent o
f Loc
al R
ule
77.2
con
trolli
ng a
ttorn
eys’
ext
raju
dici
al s
tate
men
ts to
the
pres
s, af
ter
a de
fens
e at
torn
ey’s
rep
eate
d ex
traju
dici
al p
ress
com
men
ts,
incl
udin
g de
scrib
ing
co-o
pera
ting
co-d
efen
dant
s as
“ra
ts”
com
ing
to c
olle
ct g
over
nmen
t-off
ered
“ch
eese
.” D
E/cr
118
. The
cou
rt
gran
ted
the
mot
ion,
DE/
cr 1
22.
On
the
first
day
of
trial
, th
e co
urt
note
d th
at r
elat
ives
of
the
Bro
ther
s to
the
Res
cue
shoo
tdow
n vi
ctim
s ha
d be
en ta
lkin
g to
the
pres
s, le
adin
g to
dis
cuss
ion
of
the
exte
nt o
f the
ext
ant g
ag o
rder
and
of t
he w
itnes
s-se
ques
tratio
n ru
le. S
ee D
E/cr
146
9:11
1-12
1;
see
also
DE/
cr 1
470:
194.
Def
ense
cou
nsel
requ
este
d th
at th
e ex
istin
g ga
g or
der b
e br
oade
ned
to
appl
y to
pro
spec
tive
witn
esse
s as
wel
l, pr
eclu
ding
the
m f
rom
com
men
ting
on t
he t
rial
to t
he
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
BB
G im
prop
riety
. Mov
ants
’ poi
nt s
eem
s to
be
that
sim
ply
by e
ngag
ing,
and
pay
ing,
jour
nalis
ts
to p
artic
ipat
e in
OC
B p
rogr
amm
ing,
the
BB
G v
iola
tes
the
Smith
-Mun
dt A
ct
and
enga
ges
in
proh
ibite
d do
mes
tic p
ropa
gand
a. M
ovan
ts o
ffer
no
lega
l su
ppor
t fo
r th
is p
ropo
sitio
n. A
s M
ovan
ts’
own
mat
eria
ls m
ake
clea
r, th
e B
BG
con
tinue
s to
eng
age
jour
nalis
ts f
or B
BG
br
oadc
astin
g, a
nd h
as d
one
so f
or y
ears
, in
clud
ing
for
non-
OC
B p
rogr
ams
like
the
Voi
ce o
f A
mer
ica.
See
Cas
e St
udy
at 1
7 n.
23. F
urth
er, e
ven
if M
ovan
ts’
farf
etch
ed t
heor
y of
vio
latio
n w
ere
soun
d, it
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
impa
cted
or p
reju
dice
d M
ovan
ts’ t
rial.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 32
of 6
1
33
pres
s. Th
e co
urt g
rant
ed th
is re
ques
t and
ann
ounc
ed s
uch
an o
rder
and
dire
cted
the
atto
rney
s to
so in
stru
ct th
eir w
itnes
ses.
See
DE/
cr 1
17-1
19.29
Mov
ants
do
not
esta
blis
h a
viol
atio
n of
eith
er o
rder
. The
y pr
oduc
e no
pre
ss a
rticl
es i
n
viol
atio
n of
it n
or a
ny e
xtra
judi
cial
pre
ss s
tate
men
ts b
y a
gove
rnm
ent w
itnes
s or
by
a pr
osec
utor
or o
ther
mem
ber
of t
he p
rose
cutio
n te
am.30
29Th
e tra
nscr
ipt h
as th
e co
urt s
ayin
g “I
sus
pect
all o
f the
atto
rney
s w
ill in
stru
ct th
eir w
itnes
ses
they
are
not
to ta
lk to
eac
h ot
her o
r to
the
med
ia,”
DE/
cr 1
469:
119
(em
phas
is a
dded
), bu
t cle
arly
th
e co
urt’s
act
ual w
ord
was
“ex
pect
.”
Mov
ants
foc
us o
n tri
allit
igat
ion
over
whe
ther
a
pros
pect
ive
defe
nse
witn
ess,
Ric
hard
Nuc
cio,
had
vio
late
d th
e or
der,
see
DE/
cr 8
18, 8
20, b
ut d
o
not a
ckno
wle
dge
that
the
cour
t’s g
ag o
rder
was
,pro
perly
,lim
ited
to s
tate
men
ts b
y w
itnes
ses
and
trial
par
ticip
ants
, and
did
not
ext
end
to g
aggi
ng th
e pr
ess
itsel
f. M
ovan
t Med
ina
argu
es a
gain
, as
he d
id a
t tri
al,
see
DE/
cr 8
20:4
, th
at t
he p
rose
cutio
n ex
ploi
ted
its p
lead
ing
abou
t N
ucci
o to
chan
nel
info
rmat
ion
to t
he p
ress
. B
ut t
he p
rose
cutio
n m
ade
no e
xtra
judi
cial
sta
tem
ent,
and
Mov
ant M
edin
a’s
clai
m w
as f
ully
kno
wn
to h
im a
t tria
l and
cou
ld h
ave
been
rai
sed
by h
im o
n
appe
al; a
s a
§225
5 cl
aim
it c
anno
t cle
ar th
e Fr
ady
“cau
se”
hurd
le.
Mov
ant M
edin
a al
so c
laim
s
that
the
gov
ernm
ent’s
sta
tem
ent,
in i
ts p
lead
ing,
tha
t ex
traju
dici
al w
itnes
s st
atem
ents
pos
e a
“ris
k” a
mou
nts
to a
con
cess
ion
that
sup
ports
Mov
ants
’ cla
ims
abou
t the
BB
G p
aym
ents
, DE/
LM
5:8.
Thi
s is
not
cor
rect
. The
gov
ernm
ent w
as re
ferr
ing,
exp
licitl
y, to
ext
raju
dici
al s
tate
men
ts “
by
pers
ons
who
are
des
igna
ted
witn
esse
d in
this
mat
ter,”
DE/
cr 8
18:3
. Fur
ther
, mer
e re
cogn
ition
by
the
gove
rnm
ent o
f a ri
sk th
at s
houl
d be
pru
dent
ly a
void
ed is
no
mor
e a
conc
essi
on o
f avi
olat
ion
than
the
cour
t’s e
xten
sive
mea
sure
s to
insu
late
and
inst
ruct
the
jury
aw
ay f
rom
med
ia a
ccou
nts
amou
nt to
a c
once
ssio
n th
at th
ere
was
a v
iola
tive
tain
t.
30O
f co
urse
, an
y ne
ws
artic
les
prod
uced
at
this
lat
e da
te,
mor
e th
an 1
0 ye
ars
afte
r th
e tri
al,
wou
ld fa
il Fr
ady’
s “ca
use”
test
.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 33
of 6
1
34
Any
eff
ort
by M
ovan
tsto
con
vert
the
cour
t’s o
rder
s in
thi
s ca
se t
o a
broa
d in
junc
tion
agai
nst e
very
fed
eral
age
ncy’
s ac
tions
, out
side
the
scop
e an
d au
thor
ity o
f, an
d un
know
n to
, the
pros
ecut
ion
team
, do
es n
ot s
quar
e w
ith t
he l
aw.
In
addi
tion
to t
he e
xten
sive
cas
elaw
, ci
ted
supr
a, d
efin
ing
and
delim
iting
the
res
pons
ibili
ties
of t
he p
rose
cutio
n te
am, s
ee a
lso
Wyl
er v
.
Kor
ean
Air
Line
s C
ompa
ny, L
td.,
928
F.2d
116
7, 1
171
(D.C
. Cir.
199
1)(“
One
fed
eral
age
ncy
‘sho
uld
not
be c
harg
ed w
ith k
now
ledg
e of
wha
t an
othe
r is
doi
ng s
impl
y be
caus
e bo
th a
re
com
pone
nts
of th
e sa
me
fede
ral g
over
nmen
t.’”)
; Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Wei
nste
n, 1
998
WL
3381
, *6
(E.D
.N.Y
. 199
8)(c
iting
and
quo
ting
Wyl
erin
crim
inal
-cas
e co
ntex
t). H
avin
g re
ceiv
ed th
e co
urt’s
orde
rs, t
he p
rose
cutio
n w
as re
quire
d to
obe
y it
and
to e
nsur
e th
at a
ll m
embe
rs o
f the
pro
secu
tion
team
obe
yed
it; M
ovan
ts c
ite n
o au
thor
ity t
hat
the
pros
ecut
ion’
s du
ty e
xten
ded
to p
rovi
ding
notic
e of
the
orde
r lim
itles
sly
thro
ugho
ut th
e fe
dera
l gov
ernm
ent.
In a
ny e
vent
, Mov
ants
do
not s
how
that
any
gov
ernm
ent e
ntity
vio
late
d th
e co
urt’s
ord
er,
whe
ther
ser
ved
with
it o
r no
t. A
s de
scrib
ed a
t len
gth
abov
e, th
e B
BG
’s p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
wer
e fo
r pa
rtici
patio
n in
Rad
io M
arti
and
Tele
visi
on M
arti
prog
ram
min
g ai
med
at
Cub
a. I
f
Mov
ants
’com
plai
nt is
that
the
very
ope
ratio
n of
Rad
io M
arti
and
TV M
arti
affr
onte
d th
e co
urt’s
orde
r, M
ovan
tsw
ere
wel
l aw
are
of t
hose
ope
ratio
ns a
t th
e tim
eof
the
tria
l, as
set
for
th
exte
nsiv
ely
abov
e, a
nd c
ould
hav
e m
ade
that
cla
im th
en, w
hen
the
cour
t cou
ld h
ave
addr
esse
d it;
Mov
ants
als
o co
uld
have
rai
sed
it on
dire
ct a
ppea
l. If
Mov
ants
’ co
mpl
aint
is
that
the
BB
G
paym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
see
ped
into
and
influ
ence
d th
e jo
urna
lists
’ sou
th F
lorid
a no
n-go
vern
men
t
publ
icat
ions
, th
at c
onje
ctur
e is
, as
dis
cuss
ed a
bove
, w
ithou
t fo
unda
tion,
and
con
tradi
cted
by
Mov
ants
’m
ater
ials
, w
hich
sho
w p
aym
ent
for
parti
cipa
tion
in R
adio
Mar
ti an
d TV
Mar
ti
prog
ram
min
g.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 34
of 6
1
35
ii. S
econ
d Br
ady
elem
ent:
favo
rabi
lity
to th
e de
fens
e
The
seco
nd B
rady
pro
ng is
that
the
info
rmat
ion
at is
sue
is fa
vora
ble
to th
e de
fens
e or
, as
Stri
ckle
r v. G
reen
e,
527
U.S
. at 2
81-2
82,p
ut it
, “Th
e ev
iden
ce a
t iss
ue m
ust b
e fa
vora
ble
to th
e
accu
sed,
eith
er b
ecau
se i
t is
exc
ulpa
tory
, or
beca
use
it is
im
peac
hing
.”H
ere,
the
inf
orm
atio
n
abou
t BB
G p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
is n
eith
er e
xcul
pato
ry n
or im
peac
hing
. Whi
le M
ovan
ts c
laim
that
it is
favo
rabl
e to
thei
r leg
al a
rgum
ents
for a
cha
nge
of v
enue
, the
y pr
ovid
e no
auth
ority
that
wou
ld e
xpan
d th
e Br
ady
stan
dard
to
enco
mpa
ss i
nfor
mat
ion
that
has
no
rela
tions
hip
to t
he
fact
ual
guilt
or
inno
cenc
e of
a d
efen
dant
, or
to
impe
achm
ent
of a
witn
ess.
Prod
uctio
n of
info
rmat
ion
that
is n
ot e
xpre
ssly
exc
ulpa
tory
, but
pos
sibl
y m
ight
be
favo
rabl
e to
the
defe
ndan
t
by in
fere
ntia
l rea
soni
ng, i
s be
yond
the
scop
e of
Bra
dy.
See,
e.g
., U
nite
d St
ates
v. C
omos
ona,
848
F.2d
111
0, 1
115
(10t
h C
ir. 1
988)
(“Th
e G
over
nmen
t has
no
oblig
atio
n to
dis
clos
e po
ssib
le
theo
ries
of th
e de
fens
e to
a d
efen
dant
. If a
sta
tem
ent d
oes
not c
onta
in a
ny e
xpre
ssly
exc
ulpa
tory
mat
eria
l, th
e G
over
nmen
t ne
ed n
ot p
rodu
ce t
hat
stat
emen
t to
the
def
ense
. To
hol
d ot
herw
ise
wou
ld i
mpo
se a
n in
supe
rabl
e bu
rden
on
the
Gov
ernm
ent
to d
eter
min
e w
hat
faci
ally
non
-
excu
lpat
ory
evid
ence
mig
ht p
ossi
bly
be fa
vora
ble
to th
e ac
cuse
d by
infe
rent
ial r
easo
ning
. We
are
conf
iden
t tha
t the
Sup
rem
e C
ourt
did
not i
nten
d th
e Br
ady
hold
ing
to sw
eep
so b
road
ly”)
.In
any
even
t, as
dis
cuss
ed a
bove
, the
exi
sten
ce o
f B
BG
pay
men
ts to
jour
nalis
ts d
oes
not a
dvan
ce th
e
Mov
ants
’ int
eres
ts a
nd is
not
“fa
vora
ble”
to th
eir c
laim
s.
iii. T
hird
Bra
dy e
lem
ent:
mat
eria
lity
Mov
ants
als
o ca
nnot
mee
t the
third
Bra
dypr
ong,
mat
eria
lity.
Kyl
es v
. Whi
tley,
supr
a, se
ts
forth
the
stan
dard
, con
stru
ing
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Bag
ley,
473
U.S
. 667
:
Bagl
eyhe
ld t
hat
rega
rdle
ss o
f re
ques
t, fa
vora
ble
evid
ence
is
mat
eria
l, an
d co
nstit
utio
nal e
rror
res
ults
fro
m it
s su
ppre
ssio
n by
the
gove
rnm
ent,
“if
ther
e is
a
reas
onab
le p
roba
bilit
y th
at, h
ad t
he e
vide
nce
been
dis
clos
ed t
o th
e de
fens
e, t
he
resu
lt of
the
pro
ceed
ing
wou
ld h
ave
been
diff
eren
t. .
.Ba
gley
's to
uchs
tone
of
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 35
of 6
1
36
mat
eria
lity
is a
“re
ason
able
pro
babi
lity”
of a
diff
eren
t res
ult,
and
the
adje
ctiv
e is
im
porta
nt. T
he q
uest
ion
is n
ot w
heth
er th
e de
fend
ant w
ould
mor
e lik
ely
than
not
ha
ve re
ceiv
ed a
diff
eren
t ver
dict
with
the
evid
ence
, but
whe
ther
in it
s ab
senc
e he
re
ceiv
ed a
fai
r tri
al,
unde
rsto
od a
s a
trial
res
ultin
g in
a v
erdi
ct w
orth
y of
co
nfid
ence
. A “
reas
onab
le p
roba
bilit
y” o
f a d
iffer
ent r
esul
t is
acco
rdin
gly
show
n w
hen
the
gove
rnm
ent's
evi
dent
iary
sup
pres
sion
“un
derm
ines
con
fiden
ce i
n th
e ou
tcom
e of
the
trial
.”. .
. O
ne d
oes
not s
how
a B
rady
viol
atio
n by
dem
onst
ratin
g th
at s
ome
of th
e in
culp
ator
y ev
iden
ce s
houl
d ha
ve b
een
excl
uded
, but
by
show
ing
that
the
fav
orab
leev
iden
ce c
ould
rea
sona
bly
be t
aken
to
put
the
who
le c
ase
in
such
a d
iffer
ent l
ight
as t
o un
derm
ine
conf
iden
ce in
the
verd
ict.
Kyl
es v
. Whi
tley,
514
U.S
. at 4
33-4
53 (c
itatio
nsan
dpa
ragr
aph
brea
ksom
itted
).Si
nce
none
of t
he
info
rmat
ion
at i
ssue
her
e is
evi
denc
e re
latin
g to
Mov
ants
’ gu
ilt o
r in
noce
nce,
or
witn
ess-
impe
achm
ent,
it w
ould
seem
to b
e ex
clud
ed p
er se
from
bei
ng m
ater
ial.
Even
if th
ere
is n
ot a
per
se e
xclu
sion
, the
info
rmat
ion
abou
t BB
G p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
can
not “
reas
onab
ly b
e ta
ken
to
put
the
who
le c
ase
in s
uch
a di
ffer
ent
light
as
to u
nder
min
e co
nfid
ence
in
the
verd
ict.”
The
info
rmat
ion
wou
ld h
ave
had
no im
pact
on
the
jury
, as
it w
as n
ot a
dmis
sibl
e ev
iden
ce a
nd n
ever
wou
ld h
ave
been
pre
sent
ed in
cou
rt. T
he p
rosp
ect t
hat t
he in
form
atio
n w
ould
hav
e ad
ded
to th
e
Mov
ants
’ ar
gum
ents
for
cha
nge
of v
enue
, or
for
, as
the
y cl
aim
, ju
ryse
ques
tratio
n, d
oes
not
unde
rmin
e co
nfid
ence
in th
e ve
rdic
t, w
here
the
Cou
rt of
App
eals
has
con
clud
ed th
at th
e tri
al w
as
cond
ucte
d in
an
exem
plar
y fa
shio
n, a
nd th
at th
e ju
ry w
as u
nbia
sed
and
was
pro
perly
sel
ecte
d,
insu
late
d, a
nd in
stru
cted
. It c
omes
bac
k to
the
poin
t tha
t Mov
ants
can
not e
stab
lish
prej
udic
e, a
nd
inde
ed “
prej
udic
e” is
but
ano
ther
way
of s
tatin
g th
e m
ater
ialit
y pr
ong
of B
rady
. See
Str
ickl
er v
.
Gre
ene,
527
U.S
. 281
-282
, whi
chre
stat
es th
e th
ird (m
ater
ialit
y) B
rady
pro
ng a
s “t
hat p
reju
dice
mus
t hav
e en
sued
.” S
ee a
lso
Bank
s v.
Dre
tke,
540
U.S
. 668
, 691
(200
4), r
ecog
nizi
ng th
e pa
ralle
l
betw
een
prej
udic
e an
d Br
ady’
s mat
eria
lity
stan
dard
.31
31N
or is
“co
nfid
ence
” in
the
verd
ict t
o be
mea
sure
d by
crit
ique
s of
per
sons
and
ent
ities
ext
erna
l to
jud
icia
l re
view
, su
ch a
s fo
rmer
Pre
side
nt C
arte
r, th
e U
N W
orki
ng G
roup
on
Arb
itrar
y D
eten
tion,
and
the
Nat
iona
l C
omm
ittee
to
Free
the
Cub
an F
ive,
ref
eren
ced
by M
ovan
ts. T
his
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 36
of 6
1
37
The
gove
rnm
ent
does
not
con
cede
tha
t in
form
atio
n ab
out
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
to
jour
nalis
ts w
ould
hav
e he
lped
Mov
ants
adv
ance
–le
t al
one
win
–th
eir
chan
ge o
f ve
nue
argu
men
t. Fu
rther
, sin
ce M
ovan
tsre
ceiv
ed a
fai
r tri
al e
ven
with
out
the
chan
ge o
f ve
nue
they
soug
ht,
the
info
rmat
ion
is i
mm
ater
ial
for
Brad
y pu
rpos
es.
But
eve
n if
it w
ould
hav
e be
en
“hel
pful
” to
thei
r ar
gum
ent,
that
is n
ot th
e m
easu
re o
f Br
ady
mat
eria
lity.
“Th
e m
ere
poss
ibili
ty
that
an
item
of
undi
sclo
sed
info
rmat
ion
mig
ht h
ave
help
ed th
e de
fens
e, o
r m
ight
hav
e af
fect
ed
the
outc
ome
of t
he t
rial,
does
not
est
ablis
h ‘m
ater
ialit
y’ i
n th
e co
nstit
utio
nal
sens
e.”
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Agu
rs, 4
27 U
.S. 9
7, 1
09-1
10 (
1976
);se
e al
so K
yles
v. W
hitle
y, 5
14 U
.S. a
t 436
-437
:
“[T]
he C
onst
itutio
n is
not
vio
late
d ev
ery
time
the
gove
rnm
ent f
ails
or c
hoos
es n
ot to
dis
clos
ure
evid
ence
that
mig
ht p
rove
hel
pful
to th
e de
fens
e.”
It is
not
ewor
thy
that
Bag
ley
was
itse
lf a
case
that
rev
erse
d a
Nin
th C
ircui
t dec
isio
n th
at d
ispe
nsed
with
a s
how
ing
of (
prej
udic
e) m
ater
ialit
y
whe
re t
he g
over
nmen
t ha
d su
ppre
ssed
im
peac
hmen
t in
form
atio
n. Q
uotin
g G
iglio
v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es, 4
05 U
.S.1
50 (1
972)
,Bag
ley
said
, 473
U.S
. at 6
77, “
We
do n
ot, h
owev
er, a
utom
atic
ally
requ
ire a
new
tria
l w
hene
ver
‘a c
ombi
ng o
f th
e pr
osec
utor
s’ f
iles
afte
r th
e tri
al h
asdi
sclo
sed
evid
ence
pos
sibl
y us
eful
to th
e de
fens
e bu
t not
like
ly to
hav
e ch
ange
d th
e ve
rdic
t . .
.’ A
find
ing
ofm
ater
ialit
y of
the
evid
ence
is re
quire
d un
der B
rady
.”M
ovan
ts w
ould
go
even
furth
er th
an th
e
reje
cted
Nin
th C
ircui
t app
roac
h, a
nd m
ake
such
a ru
le o
f rel
ief f
or a
com
bing
, yea
rs la
ter,
of th
e
reco
rds
of t
he e
ntire
Uni
ted
Stat
es g
over
nmen
t, no
t ju
st t
he p
rose
cuto
r.Th
is i
s co
ntra
ry t
o
com
mon
sen
se, a
nd c
ontra
ry to
long
-est
ablis
hed
Supr
eme
Cou
rt ca
sela
w.M
ovan
ts’
clai
ms
that
the
pros
ecut
ion
viol
ated
its d
iscl
osur
e du
ties s
houl
d be
reje
cted
.
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
case
has
gen
erat
ed p
ropo
nent
s on
bot
h si
des,
and
“con
fiden
ce in
the
verd
ict”
is n
ot a
sses
sed
by
refe
rend
um a
mon
g pa
rtisa
ns, b
ut b
y ob
ject
ive
judi
cial
revi
ew, b
ased
on
the
cour
t rec
ord.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 37
of 6
1
38
G. C
laim
that
cou
nsel
wer
e re
nder
ed in
effe
ctiv
e
In th
eir q
uest
toar
ticul
ate
a du
e pr
oces
s vi
olat
ion,
Mov
ants
’ cou
nsel
(eac
h of
who
m a
lso
repr
esen
ted
thes
e re
spec
tive
Mov
ants
at
trial
) cl
aim
tha
t no
n-di
sclo
sure
to
them
of
the
BB
G
paym
ent i
nfor
mat
ion
caus
ed th
em to
be
inef
fect
ive
in r
epre
sent
ing
thei
r cl
ient
s, in
vio
latio
n of
the
Sixt
h A
men
dmen
t. Si
nce
ther
e w
as n
o du
ty f
or th
e pr
osec
utio
n to
mak
e di
sclo
sure
of
this
info
rmat
ion,
Mov
ants
’ cl
aim
in th
is r
egar
d co
uld
be d
enie
d si
mpl
y on
that
bas
is. N
onet
hele
ss,
and
with
out w
aivi
ng th
e po
int,
we
will
add
ress
the
clai
m fu
rther
.
Mov
ants
’ co
nten
tions
are
an i
napp
ropr
iate
ass
ertio
n of
the
ine
ffec
tive-
assi
stan
ce-o
f-
coun
sel d
octri
neof
Str
ickl
and
v. W
ashi
ngto
n, 4
66 U
.S. 6
68 (1
984)
.Tha
t doc
trine
reco
gniz
es th
at
ever
y de
fend
ant i
s en
title
d to
be
repr
esen
ted
by c
ouns
el o
pera
ting
ator
abo
vea
cons
titut
iona
l
min
imum
of
com
pete
nce.
It is
a t
est
of a
ttorn
ey c
ompe
tenc
e, b
ased
on
eval
uatio
n of
“th
e
reas
onab
lene
ss o
f cou
nsel
’s c
halle
nged
con
duct
on
the
fact
s of
the
parti
cula
r cas
e, v
iew
ed a
s of
the
time
of c
ouns
el’s
con
duct
.”Id
.at6
90.O
nly
thos
e ha
beas
pet
ition
ers
who
can
sho
w th
at th
ey
have
bee
n de
nied
a fa
ir tri
al “
by th
e gr
oss
inco
mpe
tenc
e of
thei
r atto
rney
s” a
re e
ligib
le fo
r rel
ief.
See
Kim
mel
man
v. M
orri
son,
477
U.S
. 365
, 382
(19
86).
Her
e M
ovan
ts’
coun
sel c
laim
not
that
they
wer
e in
com
pete
nt, n
or th
at th
eir p
erfo
rman
ce w
as d
efic
ient
from
the
stan
dpoi
nt o
f wha
t the
y
knew
at t
he ti
me
of th
e tri
al, b
ut th
at th
ey w
ere
thw
arte
d fr
om re
pres
entin
g M
ovan
ts e
ffec
tivel
y
due
to n
ot b
eing
tol
dth
e B
BG
-pay
men
t in
form
atio
n.Th
is f
lout
s St
rickl
and’
s di
rect
ive
“to
reco
nstru
ct th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
of c
ouns
el’s
cha
lleng
ed c
ondu
ct, a
nd to
eva
luat
e th
e co
nduc
t fro
m
coun
sel’s
per
spec
tive
at th
e tim
e,”
Stri
ckla
nd v
. Was
hing
ton,
466
U.S
. at 6
89.
To b
e su
re, i
f the
pros
ecut
ion
impr
oper
ly f
ails
to
disc
lose
req
uire
d in
form
atio
n, t
here
may
be
reco
urse
for
a
defe
ndan
t; th
at is
wha
t Bra
dy v
. Mar
ylan
d, su
pra,
373
U.S
. 83,
and
its p
roge
ny a
re a
ll ab
out.
But
as t
he g
over
nmen
t al
read
y ha
s sh
own,
Mov
ants
can
not
mee
t th
e es
tabl
ishe
d te
sts
for
a Br
ady
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 38
of 6
1
39
clai
m, a
nd th
ey m
ayno
t avo
id th
ose
test
s by
rep
acka
ging
thei
r cl
aim
as
Stri
ckla
nd in
effe
ctiv
e
assi
stan
ce o
f co
unse
l, w
hich
is m
eant
to a
sses
s at
torn
ey p
erfo
rman
ce b
ased
on
the
even
ts a
s of
the
time
of th
e at
torn
ey c
ondu
ct.
Inde
ed,
ther
e is
mut
ual
excl
usiv
ity b
etw
een
a Br
ady
clai
m a
nd a
cla
im o
f St
rick
land
inef
fect
ive
assi
stan
ce o
f co
unse
l, in
thi
s re
gard
. Th
en-J
udge
Alit
o ill
umin
ated
thi
s in
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. DeR
ewal
, 10
F.3d
100
, 104
(3d
Cir.
199
3), e
xpla
inin
g th
at c
laim
s of
new
ly-d
isco
vere
d
evid
ence
and
of
inef
fect
ive
assi
stan
ce o
f co
unse
l fo
r fa
iling
to
disc
over
tha
t ev
iden
ce a
re
“mut
ually
exc
lusi
ve,”
bec
ause
“ne
wly
dis
cove
red
evid
ence
mus
t be
evid
ence
that
tria
l cou
nsel
coul
d no
t hav
e di
scov
ered
with
due
dili
genc
e be
fore
tria
l” (
emph
asis
add
ed).
See
also
Uni
ted
Stat
es. v
. Mir
anda
, 951
F.S
upp.
368
, 371
(E.D
.N.Y
. 199
6) (c
laim
that
atto
rney
faile
d to
cal
l co-
defe
ndan
ts
to
test
ify
inco
nsis
tent
w
ith
clai
m
that
co
-def
enda
nts’
st
atem
ents
ar
e ne
wly
disc
over
ed).
The
poin
t is
equa
lly a
pplic
able
in a
Bra
dy c
onte
xt a
s w
ell a
s in
a n
ewly
-dis
cove
red-
evid
ence
con
text
:32
32M
ovan
t C
ampa
’s §
2255
for
m m
otio
n, D
E/C
R 1
, re
fers
to
his
§225
5 cl
aim
as
“New
ly
disc
over
ed e
vide
nce,
” se
e D
E/C
R 1
:4 G
RO
UN
D O
NE
(b)(
2), a
lthou
gh h
e do
es n
ot a
rgue
it th
at
way
in
his
supp
ortin
gm
emor
andu
m, D
E/C
R 1
-2. M
ovan
ts’
clai
m a
s to
the
BB
G i
nfor
mat
ion
fails
to p
ass
mus
ter a
s a
Brad
y cl
aim
, and
, with
no
supp
ort f
rom
the
Brad
ydo
ctrin
e, e
ssen
tially
am
ount
s to
, an
d m
ay b
e co
nstru
ed a
s, a
mot
ion
for
new
tria
l ba
sed
on n
ewly
dis
cove
red
evid
ence
.See
Man
kari
ous
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, 282
F.3
d 94
0(7
thC
ir. 2
002)
(cla
im, s
tyle
d as
§22
55
mot
ion,
ana
lyze
d as
, and
sub
ject
to ru
les
of, F
ed. R
. Crim
.P. R
ule
33 m
otio
n fo
r new
tria
l bas
ed
on n
ewly
dis
cove
red
evid
ence
).
Mov
ants
’ cla
im th
at th
e go
vern
men
t had
a d
uty
to d
iscl
ose
the
BB
G p
aym
ent
As
such
, the
cla
im fa
ils. T
he c
laim
cou
ld n
ot m
eet t
he fi
ve-p
art t
est f
or n
ewly
dis
cove
red
evid
ence
; see
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Sch
lei,
122
F.3d
944
, 991
(11t
h C
ir. 1
997)
. Fur
ther
, the
cla
im o
f ne
wly
dis
cove
red
evid
ence
is
time-
barr
ed.
See
Fed.
R.C
rim.P
. 33
(b)(
1) (
mot
ion
for
new
tria
l ba
sed
on n
ewly
dis
cove
red
evid
ence
mus
t be
file
d w
ithin
thr
ee y
ears
of
verd
ict
or f
indi
ng o
f gu
ilt).
That
Mov
ants
’ §2
255
mot
ions
wer
e tim
ely
unde
r th
e A
ntite
rror
ism
and
Eff
ectiv
e D
eath
Pena
lty A
ct o
f 19
96 (
“AED
PA”)
, see
28
U.S
.C. §
2255
(f),
does
not
ext
end
the
time
limits
of
Fed.
R.C
rim.P
. 33
. Se
e M
anka
riou
sv.
Uni
ted
Stat
es,
282
F.3d
at
945.
(“[D
]efe
ndan
ts,
as w
e kn
ow, m
ay n
ot u
se §
2255
to c
ircum
vent
Rul
e 33
’s ti
me
limit.
”) S
ee a
lso
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Eva
ns,
224
F.3d
670
, 67
4 (7
th C
ir. 2
000)
;Fr
ias
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, 201
0 W
L 35
6486
6, *
6 (S
.D.N
.Y.
2010
) (n
ewly
-dis
cove
red
evid
ence
cla
im m
ade
in §
2255
mot
ion
subj
ect t
o R
ule
33’s
thre
e-ye
ar
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 39
of 6
1
40
info
rmat
ion
nece
ssar
ily in
clud
es a
nd su
bsum
es a
cla
im th
at th
eyan
d th
eir c
ouns
elco
uld
not h
ave
disc
over
ed th
e in
form
atio
n th
emse
lves
with
due
dili
genc
e, s
ee W
est v
. Joh
nson
, 92
F.3d
138
5,
1399
(5th
Cir.
199
6);U
nite
d St
ates
v. M
cMah
on, 7
15 F
.2d
498,
501
(11th
Cir.
198
3)(n
o Br
ady
oblig
atio
n to
fur
nish
inf
orm
atio
n de
fend
ant
alre
ady
has
or c
an o
btai
n hi
mse
lf w
ith r
easo
nabl
e
dilig
ence
), in
whi
ch c
ase
they
wer
e no
t ine
ffec
tive
and
inco
mpe
tent
for f
ailin
g to
arg
ue b
ased
on
the
info
rmat
ion.
Mov
ants
cite
Gon
zazl
ez-S
ober
al v
. Uni
ted
Stat
es, 2
44 F
.3d
273
(1st
Cir.
200
1),
but t
here
the
appe
llant
s ha
d, b
ut re
linqu
ishe
d at
ora
l arg
umen
t, an
alte
rnat
ive
Brad
y cl
aim
, id.
at
274
n. 1
, elim
inat
ing
the
logi
cal d
isso
nanc
e th
at a
fflic
ts M
ovan
ts’ p
ositi
on.
Stat
ed a
noth
er w
ay,
Mov
ants
can
not
show
def
icie
nt p
erfo
rman
ce o
f co
unse
l –
one
of
Stri
ckla
nd’s
two
requ
ired
pron
gs –
base
d on
the
even
ts a
s of
the
time,
and
und
er th
e th
en-k
now
n
circ
umst
ance
s, of
thei
r con
duct
at t
rial.
Non
ethe
less
, an
d w
ithou
t w
aivi
ng a
ny p
roce
dura
l ob
ject
ion
toM
ovan
ts’
inef
fect
ive-
assi
stan
ce-o
f-co
unse
l cla
ims,
we
will
brie
fly r
espo
nd to
thos
e cl
aim
s.M
ovan
ts c
laim
four
way
s
in w
hich
they
say
that
thei
r cou
nsel
wer
e re
nder
ed in
effe
ctiv
e: in
arg
uing
for c
hang
e of
ven
ue; i
n
not s
eeki
ng s
anct
ions
bas
ed o
n th
e B
BG
pay
men
t inf
orm
atio
n; in
not
mov
ing
to s
eque
ster
the
jury
; an
d in
not
arg
uing
due
-pro
cess
vio
latio
ns. S
ee D
E/LM
5:1
8-23
; D
E/R
C 1
-2:2
0-25
.Th
e
jury
-seq
uest
ratio
n is
sue
has
alre
ady
been
add
ress
ed, s
upra
. As
for n
ot h
avin
g th
e B
BG
-pay
men
t
argu
men
t to
add
to th
eir a
rgum
ents
for c
hang
e of
ven
ue, M
ovan
ts d
o no
t eve
n try
to, a
nd c
anno
t,
esta
blis
h St
rick
land
pre
judi
ce, a
s re
quire
d fo
r an
ine
ffec
tive-
assi
stan
ce-o
f-co
unse
l cl
aim
. “Th
e
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
limit)
. Rul
e 33
(b)(
1) c
onst
itute
s a
nonj
uris
dict
iona
l rul
e fo
r pro
cess
ing
clai
ms,
who
se in
flexi
ble
bar a
nd th
ree-
year
dea
dlin
e ca
nnot
be
avoi
ded
if in
voke
d by
the
gove
rnm
ent,
as w
e do
her
e. S
ee
Eber
hart
v. U
nite
d St
ates
,546
U.S
. 12
(200
5) (p
er c
uria
m).
Whe
ther
cha
ract
eriz
ed a
s a
Rul
e 33
m
otio
n or
as a
§22
55 a
ctio
n, th
e cl
aim
by
Mov
ants
of n
ewly
disc
over
ed e
vide
nce
com
es to
o la
te.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 40
of 6
1
41
defe
ndan
t mus
t sho
w th
at th
ere
is a
reas
onab
le p
roba
bilit
y th
at, b
ut fo
r cou
nsel
’s u
npro
fess
iona
l
erro
rs,
the
resu
lt of
the
pro
ceed
ing
wou
ld h
ave
been
diff
eren
t. A
rea
sona
bly
prob
abili
ty i
s a
prob
abili
ty su
ffic
ient
to u
nder
min
e co
nfid
ence
in th
e ou
tcom
e.”
Stri
ckla
nd, 4
66 U
.S. a
t 694
. Thi
s
test
is e
ssen
tially
the
sam
e as
the
third
pro
ng o
f Br
ady,
the
mat
eria
lity
test
. See
id, 4
66 U
.S. a
t
694:
“[T
]he
appr
opria
te te
st fo
r [St
rick
land
] pre
judi
ce fi
nds
its ro
ots
in th
e te
st fo
r mat
eria
lity
of
excu
lpat
ory
info
rmat
ion
not
disc
lose
d to
the
def
ense
by
the
pros
ecut
ion
. .
. .”
As
disc
usse
d
exte
nsiv
ely
abov
e, th
e in
form
atio
n at
iss
ue h
ere
does
not
mee
t th
e Br
ady
mat
eria
lity
test
, and
ther
efor
e co
unse
l’s n
ot h
avin
g ar
gued
it
does
not
mee
t th
e St
rick
land
pre
judi
ce t
est
eith
er. I
n
addi
tion,
Mov
ants
can
not
show
tha
t it
is l
ikel
y, l
et a
lone
rea
sona
bly
prob
able
, th
at t
he c
ourt
wou
ld h
ave
mad
e a
diff
eren
t rul
ing
with
rega
rd to
Mov
ants
’cha
nge-
of-v
enue
mot
ion
by c
ouns
el
addi
ng a
rgum
ent a
bout
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
to th
e pl
entif
ul o
ther
arg
umen
ts th
ey m
ade,
incl
udin
g
clai
ms
of p
erva
sive
, dec
ades
-long
com
mun
ity p
reju
dice
; a w
ave
of p
reju
dici
al p
ublic
ity; a
nd th
e
com
mun
ity-a
ttitu
des s
urve
y of
Dr.
Mor
an.
As
for n
ot s
eeki
ng s
anct
ions
, Mov
ants
do
not s
how
that
they
had
a m
erito
rious
san
ctio
ns
clai
m, a
nd s
o th
ere
is n
o de
ficie
ncy
in th
eir n
ot h
avin
gar
gued
for s
anct
ions
. On
the
cont
rary
, as
disc
usse
d ex
tens
ivel
y su
pra,
ther
e is
no
basi
s to
con
clud
e th
at th
e pr
osec
utio
n vi
olat
ed a
ny d
uty
in th
is c
ase;
ther
e is
no
basi
s, ot
her
than
Mov
ants
’ un
supp
orte
d co
njec
ture
, to
belie
ve th
at th
e
BB
G p
aym
ents
to jo
urna
lists
for
Rad
io M
arti/
TV
Mar
ti w
ork
eith
er h
ad, o
r w
ere
desi
gned
to
have
, im
pact
on
the
jour
nalis
ts’
non-
Mar
ti, n
on-g
over
nmen
t w
ork;
and
the
re i
s no
bas
is t
o
conc
lude
that
the
cour
t’s o
rder
s or
Loc
al R
ules
wer
e vi
olat
ed, w
arra
ntin
g an
ysa
nctio
n. C
ouns
el
is n
ot in
effe
ctiv
e fo
r not
mak
ing
a fu
tile
argu
men
t. Fu
rther
, Str
ickl
and
prej
udic
e ca
nnot
be
show
n
for t
he sa
me
reas
ons t
hat B
rady
mat
eria
lity
cann
ot b
e sh
own.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 41
of 6
1
42
As
for
not
argu
ing
due-
proc
ess
viol
atio
ns,
Mov
ants
fai
l to
arti
cula
te,
as o
ppos
ed t
o
anno
unce
, how
due
proc
ess
was
vio
late
d, le
t alo
ne th
at th
ey w
ould
hav
e ha
d an
arg
umen
t in
that
rega
rd r
easo
nabl
y pr
obab
le to
hav
e ca
used
a d
iffer
ent r
esul
t in
the
proc
eedi
ng. T
hey
insi
nuat
e
that
the
BB
G’s
pay
men
ts t
o jo
urna
lists
vio
late
dth
e Sm
ith-M
undt
Act
, bu
t th
ey f
urni
sh n
o
auth
ority
for
that
con
tent
ion
nor
expl
ain
how
any
suc
h st
atut
ory
viol
atio
n w
ould
am
ount
to
a
due-
proc
ess
viol
atio
n. T
hey
refe
renc
e th
e Fi
fth a
nd S
ixth
Am
endm
ents
, and
the
Equa
l Pro
tect
ion
Cla
use,
see
DE/
LM 5
:22-
23;
DE/
RC
1-2
:24-
25, b
ut d
o no
t fle
sh o
ut a
ny a
rgum
ents
bas
ed o
n
thes
e pr
ovis
ions
with
cas
e la
w o
r ana
logo
us fa
ct p
atte
rns.
If th
e Si
xth
Am
endm
ent c
laim
is th
eir
inef
fect
ive-
assi
stan
ce-o
f-co
unse
l cl
aim
, tha
t fa
ils a
s di
scus
sed
here
in.
If th
e Fi
fth A
men
dmen
t
clai
m li
es in
thei
r allu
sion
to c
onvi
ctio
ns se
cure
d “t
hrou
gh a
del
iber
ate
dece
ptio
n of
the
cour
t and
jury
,” s
ee D
E/LM
5:2
2; D
E/R
C 1
-2:2
4, t
hey
fail
to e
stab
lish
any
dece
ptio
n. F
urth
er,
this
argu
men
t is
mad
e in
the
con
text
of,
and
citin
g to
, Br
ady
v. M
aryl
and
but
as p
revi
ousl
y
disc
usse
d,th
ere
was
no
Brad
y vi
olat
ion
here
. The
Equ
al P
rote
ctio
n ar
gum
ent a
lso
is n
ot m
ade.
If
Mov
ants
’ po
int
is t
hat
they
are
dis
crim
inat
ed a
gain
st a
s em
ploy
ees
and
supp
orte
rs o
f th
e
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Cub
a, th
eir a
rgum
ent a
mou
nts
to a
qua
rrel
with
the
Rad
io B
road
cast
ing
to C
uba
Act
,C
ongr
ess,
and
Uni
ted
Stat
es f
orei
gn p
olic
y,ra
ther
tha
n a
due-
proc
ess
clai
m.
Rat
her,
Mov
ants
com
e cl
oser
to
the
real
ity o
f th
eir
posi
tion
whe
n th
ey d
escr
ibe
thei
r cl
aim
as
“unp
rece
dent
ed,”
DE/
RC
1-2
:2, a
nd n
ote
that
cou
rts h
ave
neve
r be
fore
add
ress
ed s
uch
a cl
aim
,
DE/
LM 5
:4, D
E/R
C 1
-2:2
. Thi
s is b
ut a
vei
led
adm
issi
onth
at M
ovan
tsha
ve n
o au
thor
ity o
r leg
al
prec
eden
t fo
r th
eir
due-
proc
ess
clai
m.
Acc
ordi
ngly
, no
t be
ing
able
to
ar
gue
such
an
unpr
eced
ente
d an
d m
eritl
ess
clai
m a
t tri
al w
as n
ot i
neff
ectiv
e as
sist
ance
of
coun
sel.
Nor
can
Mov
ants
show
Str
ickl
and
prej
udic
e, a
s set
forth
at t
he B
rady
mat
eria
lity
disc
ussi
on su
pra.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 42
of 6
1
43
Mov
ant C
ampa
add
s to
thes
e fo
ur in
effe
ctiv
e-as
sist
ance
-of-
coun
sel c
laim
s a
fifth
that
is
also
mer
itles
s. H
e in
serts
a o
ne-s
ente
nce
clai
m, a
t DE/
RC
1-2
:24,
that
bec
ause
he
did
not k
now
of th
e B
BG
-pay
men
t inf
orm
atio
n he
did
not
und
erst
and
the
stra
tegi
c si
gnifi
canc
eof
pre
serv
ing
and
rais
ing
on a
ppea
l eve
ry in
stan
ce o
f w
hat h
e ch
arac
teriz
es a
s in
flam
mat
ory
and
prej
udic
ial
evid
ence
and
arg
umen
t, re
ferr
ing
to h
is A
ppen
dix
B, a
ttach
ed a
s D
E/R
C 1
-4.S
ee a
lso
DE/
RC
1-
2:15
, ref
eren
cing
App
endi
x B
. Thi
s A
ppen
dix
is a
14-
page
cha
rt lis
ting
mor
e th
an 1
00 in
stan
ces
of p
urpo
rted
pros
ecut
oria
l mis
cond
uct i
n ta
bula
r for
m. M
ovan
t Cam
pa o
ffer
s no
arg
umen
t as
to
any
of t
hese
cla
imed
ins
tanc
es o
f pr
osec
utor
ial
mis
cond
uct,
and
his
pres
enta
tion
of s
uch
perf
unct
ory
and
unde
rdev
elop
ed a
rgum
ent i
s in
suff
icie
nt to
mee
t the
requ
irem
ents
of t
he R
ules
Gov
erni
ng S
ectio
n 22
55 P
roce
edin
gs F
or t
he U
nite
d St
ates
Dis
trict
Cou
rts.
See
Rul
e 2(
b)(1
)
[“Th
e m
otio
n m
ust .
. . s
peci
fyal
l the
gro
unds
for r
elie
f ava
ilabl
e to
the
mov
ing
party
”],2
(b)(
2)
[mot
ion
mus
t “st
ate
the
fact
ssup
porti
ng e
ach
grou
nd”]
(em
phas
is a
dded
).
In
any
even
t, no
twith
stan
ding
an
d w
ithou
t w
aivi
ng
obje
ctio
n to
th
e pr
oced
ural
inad
equa
cy o
f su
chpr
esen
tatio
n, w
e no
te t
hat
Mov
ant
Cam
pa’s
sug
gest
ion
that
cou
nsel
was
inef
fect
ive
for
faili
ng t
o ra
ise
thes
e cl
aim
s on
app
eal
is p
lain
ly w
rong
. M
ovan
t C
ampa
’s
appe
llate
cou
nsel
, Ric
hard
Klu
gh, s
ough
t to
rai
se e
ach
of t
hese
cla
ims
on a
ppea
l, an
d in
deed
App
endi
x B
is
a co
py o
f a
char
t of
mis
cond
uct
clai
ms
Mr.
Klu
gh s
ubm
itted
to
the
Elev
enth
Circ
uit C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls in
Cam
pa 3
, and
als
o ap
pend
ed to
the
§225
5 m
otio
n of
co-
defe
ndan
t
Her
nand
ez, w
hom
he
now
rep
rese
nts.
See
char
t, w
ith M
r. K
lugh
’s c
over
lette
r, as
sub
mitt
ed to
Cou
rt of
App
eals
, atta
ched
her
eto
as g
over
nmen
t’s A
ttach
men
t E.A
s fo
r th
e cl
aim
that
cou
nsel
was
ine
ffec
tive
for
not
obje
ctin
g to
cer
tain
of
thes
e pr
osec
utor
ial
acts
, Mov
ant
Cam
pa’s
cha
rt
DE/
RC
1-4
incl
udes
bot
h ob
ject
ed-to
and
uno
bjec
ted-
to a
cts,
but h
e m
akes
no
effo
rt to
cul
l out
obje
cted
-to a
cts
or t
o sp
ecify
exa
ctly
whi
ch m
isco
nduc
t cl
aim
s he
is
seek
ing
to r
aise
in
the
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 43
of 6
1
44
inef
fect
iven
ess
cont
ext.
Furth
er, s
ince
his
inef
fect
iven
ess-
of-c
ouns
el c
laim
is b
ased
on
coun
sel’s
supp
osed
ly b
eing
dep
rived
of
the
BB
G-p
aym
ent
info
rmat
ion,
Mov
ant
Cam
pa’s
failu
re t
o
artic
ulat
e in
divi
dual
cla
ims o
r exp
lana
tions
, or t
o lin
k th
em to
the
BB
G in
form
atio
n, is
fata
l.
With
out s
uch
spec
ifica
tion,
Mov
ant C
ampa
fails
to s
how
pre
judi
ce, a
s he
has
no
basi
s to
show
tha
t th
e in
stan
ces
wer
e in
fac
t m
isco
nduc
t; th
at o
bjec
tion
wou
ld h
ave
been
mer
itorio
us;
wha
t pos
sibl
e re
latio
n th
e B
BG
-pay
men
t inf
orm
atio
n ha
d to
his
non
-obj
ectio
n; o
r th
at h
is n
on-
obje
ctio
ns w
ere
outs
ide
the
wid
e ra
nge
of r
easo
nabl
e pr
ofes
sion
al a
ssis
tanc
e. I
ndee
d, d
ecid
ing
not t
o ob
ject
can
be
a ta
ctic
al d
ecis
ion,
inas
muc
h as
obj
ectin
g ca
n se
rve
to h
ighl
ight
neg
ativ
e
mat
eria
l. Se
e Br
adfo
rd v
. Tim
mer
man
-Coo
per,
2008
WL
3992
142,
*3
(N.D
. Ohi
o 20
08).
As
note
d, M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
app
ella
te c
ouns
el s
ough
t to
rais
e al
l the
se c
laim
s to
the
cour
t
of a
ppea
ls.
Inde
ed,
clai
ms
of p
rose
cuto
rial-m
isco
nduc
t w
ere
amon
g th
e m
ost
exte
nsiv
ely
litig
ated
in
the
appe
als,
33
33Se
e, e
.g.,
2003
WL
2524
5478
at S
tate
men
t of I
ssue
s, IV
, *17
, *52
-*60
; 20
03 W
L 25
2454
80 a
t *3
6-*3
7; 2
003
WL
2524
5477
at *
44-*
54; 2
003
WL
2524
5469
at *
23-*
27; 2
003
WL
2524
5468
at
*23
-*25
; 200
3 W
L 25
2454
66 a
t *24
-*28
; 200
5 W
L 46
3801
2 at
Sec
tion
IV(2
), pa
ge 2
8 ff
. (no
st
ar p
agin
atio
n); 2
003
WL
2524
5471
at *
34-*
35, *
56, *
66-*
69; 2
006
WL
2252
120
at *
20-*
24,
2006
WL
2252
113
at *
19-*
29; 2
006
WL
4877
273,
ent
ire b
rief;
Atta
chm
ent C
at 3
4-35
, 47-
48,
65-6
6, 7
4-76
.
and
Mov
ant
Cam
pa’s
atte
mpt
to
repa
ckag
e th
em a
s an
ine
ffec
tive-
assi
stan
ce-o
f-co
unse
l §22
55 m
otio
n tra
nsgr
esse
s th
e m
anda
te r
ule.
See
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Pei
rce,
supr
a, 2
011
WL
4001
071
at *
2-*4
(in
effe
ctiv
e-as
sist
ance
-of-
coun
sel §
2255
cla
ims
may
trum
p
the
“cau
se”
proc
edur
al d
efau
lt is
sue-
prec
lusi
on b
ar, b
ut n
ot t
he m
anda
te-r
ule
issu
e-pr
eclu
sion
bar;
“sim
ply
repa
ckag
ing
thes
e [a
ppel
late
-cou
rt] r
ejec
ted
lines
of
reas
onin
gas
ine
ffec
tive
assi
stan
ce c
laim
s ca
nnot
circ
umve
nt t
he m
anda
te r
ule
or e
ntitl
e [p
etiti
oner
] to
hab
eas
relie
f”).
App
ella
te c
laim
s of
pro
secu
toria
l m
isco
nduc
t, no
t ob
ject
ed t
o be
low
, are
rev
iew
ed f
or
plai
n er
ror.
Uni
ted
Stat
esv.
Ver
bits
kaya
, 406
F.3
d 13
24, 1
336
(11t
h C
ir. 2
005)
;see
als
o U
nite
d
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 44
of 6
1
45
Stat
es v
. N
aran
jo,
supr
a,63
4 F.
3d a
t 12
06-1
207.
Whe
n a
clai
m o
f in
effe
ctiv
e as
sist
ance
of
coun
sel i
s ba
sed
on a
failu
re to
obj
ect t
o an
err
or, “
that
und
erly
ing
erro
r mus
t at l
east
sat
isfy
the
stan
dard
for p
reju
dice
that
we
empl
oy o
n ou
r rev
iew
for p
lain
err
or. .
. . I
t wou
ld b
e no
nsen
sica
l
if a
petit
ione
r, on
col
late
ral
revi
ew, c
ould
sub
ject
his
cha
lleng
e to
an
unob
ject
ed-to
err
or t
o a
less
er b
urde
n by
arti
cula
ting
it as
a c
laim
of i
neff
ectiv
e as
sist
ance
.” G
ordo
n v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es, 5
18
F.3d
129
1, 1
298
(11t
h C
ir. 2
008)
. Thu
s,M
ovan
tCam
pa’s
gov
ernm
ent-m
isco
nduc
t cla
ims
wou
ld
have
to ri
se to
the
leve
l of p
lain
err
or to
mer
it co
nsid
erat
ion,
yet
he
fails
to a
rgue
the
spec
ifics
of
thes
e cl
aim
s, le
t al
one
show
pla
in e
rror
. In
add
ition
to
appe
llate
pla
in-e
rror
rev
iew
, al
l th
is
cond
uct a
lso
was
obs
erve
d by
the
trial
cou
rt. T
here
is n
o pr
ospe
ct th
at th
is c
ourt,
whi
ch w
as s
o
care
ful
to c
ondu
ct a
fai
r an
d le
gally
pro
per
trial
, w
ould
hav
e sa
t by
sile
ntly
as h
undr
eds
of
unob
ject
ed-to
inst
ance
s of
pro
secu
toria
l m
isco
nduc
t, am
ount
ing
to p
lain
err
or, a
ccum
ulat
ed a
s
Mov
ant
Cam
pa’s
ch
art
clai
ms.
Mov
ant
Cam
pa’s
ef
fort
to
impo
rt m
ultip
le
gove
rnm
ent-
mis
cond
uct c
laim
s int
o hi
s §22
55 m
otio
n fa
ils.
H. C
laim
that
ane
ws a
rtic
le r
each
ed th
e ve
nire
Mov
ants
als
o cl
aim
tha
t th
ey n
ow d
isce
rn f
rom
a D
ecem
ber
3, 2
000,
new
s ar
ticle
tha
t
veni
repe
rson
s may
hav
e be
en re
adin
g m
edia
acc
ount
s, co
ntra
ry to
inst
ruct
ions
. See
DE/
LM 5
:24-
27,
DE/
RC
1-2
:25-
29.
This
arg
umen
t is
bas
ed o
n no
thin
g bu
t sp
ecul
atio
n; i
s re
fute
d by
the
reco
rd; a
nd c
omes
mor
e th
an a
dec
ade
too
late
.The
arti
cle,
whi
ch M
ovan
ts d
o no
t app
end,
34
34W
e lo
cate
d th
e Sp
anis
h-la
ngua
ge a
rticl
e at
was
http
s://w
ww
.lexi
s.com
/rese
arch
/retri
eve?
cc=&
push
me=
1&tm
pFB
Sel=
all&
tota
ldoc
s=&
tagg
edD
ocs
=&to
ggle
Val
ue=&
num
Doc
sChk
ed=0
&pr
efFB
Sel=
0&de
lform
at=X
CIT
E&fp
Doc
s=&
fpN
odeI
d=&
fpC
iteR
eq=&
expN
ewLe
ad=i
d%3D
%22
expa
nded
New
Lead
%22
&br
and=
&de
dupe
Opt
ion=
0&_m
=543
cc76
5d19
f2d9
c9ad
604c
c13d
0c59
f&do
cnum
=1&
_fm
tstr=
FULL
&_s
tartd
oc=1
&w
chp=
dG
LbV
zS-
zSkA
b&_m
d5=2
975f
8127
5ac6
f39f
296d
7646
3b16
09a&
focB
udTe
rms=
AU
TOR
%28
ferr
eira
%29
&fo
cBud
Sel=
alla
nd a
ppen
d a
copy
as A
ttach
men
t F. W
e w
ill su
pple
men
t lat
er w
ith a
n En
glis
h tra
nsla
tion.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 45
of 6
1
46
publ
ishe
d by
El N
uevo
Her
ald
and
was
writ
ten
by R
ui F
erre
ira. R
epor
ter
Ferr
eira
is n
ot o
ne o
f
the
jour
nalis
ts M
ovan
ts c
laim
rece
ived
BB
G p
aym
ents
, and
this
arti
cle
has
no fa
ctua
l rel
atio
n to
thei
r co
mpl
aint
abo
ut t
he B
BG
pay
men
ts.
The
Sund
ay,
Dec
embe
r 3,
200
0, e
ight
-par
agra
ph
artic
le re
ports
on
the
jury
-sel
ectio
n pr
oces
s th
at h
ad b
een
proc
eedi
ng in
ope
n co
urt.
The
seve
nth
para
grap
h co
ntai
ns a
sta
tem
ent t
hat a
s of
Frid
ay D
ecem
ber 1
the
jury
so
far w
as m
ainl
y “a
nglo
”
and
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
an, i
n pa
rt be
caus
e al
mos
t all
the
sum
mon
ed p
erso
ns o
f C
uban
orig
in h
ave
said
that
they
cou
ld n
ot b
e im
parti
al. T
he a
rticl
e co
nclu
des
with
a f
inal
par
agra
ph s
tatin
g th
at
ther
e ar
e ex
cept
ions
, and
quo
tes
a yo
ung
veni
repe
rson
of C
uban
orig
in s
ayin
g th
at s
he w
ould
not
be in
fluen
ced.
Mov
ants
poi
nt to
the
seve
nth-
para
grap
h st
atem
ent,
and
seek
to li
nk it
to w
hat t
hey
desc
ribe
as
a re
mar
kabl
e ch
ange
in
th
e re
spon
ses
of
Cub
an-A
mer
ican
35
This
wild
spe
cula
tion
has
no s
uppo
rt in
the
rec
ord,
and
is
cont
radi
cted
by
it. F
irst,
Mov
ants
’ ac
coun
t of
the
voi
r di
re i
s fa
ctua
lly g
arbl
ed.
They
cla
im t
hat
prio
r to
the
Fer
reira
artic
le, 2
1ve
nire
pers
ons
wer
e st
ricke
n fo
r cau
se b
ased
on
polit
ical
vie
ws,
but t
heir
foot
note
onl
y
cite
s th
ree
veni
repe
rson
s, se
e D
E/LM
5:2
5 n.
11;
DE/
RC
1-2
:27
n.12
, m
akin
g th
eir
clai
m
mea
ning
less
and
impo
ssib
le to
ass
ess.
The
num
eric
al b
ase
they
focu
son
as b
eing
sus
pect
–“f
ive
juro
rs,
all
Cub
an,”
DE/
LM 5
:25-
26,
26 n
.15;
DE/
RC
1-2
:28,
28
n.15
–is
too
sm
all
to b
e
veni
repe
rson
s
subs
eque
nt t
o th
e ar
ticle
’s p
ublic
atio
n, r
esul
ting
in C
uban
-Am
eric
an v
enire
pers
ons
bein
g
dism
isse
d fo
r ca
use
at a
low
er r
ate
than
pre
viou
sly.
From
thi
s, M
ovan
ts d
ivin
e th
at C
uban
-
Am
eric
an v
enire
pers
ons
mus
t hav
e re
ad th
e Fe
rrei
ra a
rticl
e an
d de
cide
d to
sha
de th
eir r
espo
nses
so th
at th
ey c
ould
get
on
the
jury
and
est
ablis
h a
Cub
an-A
mer
ican
pre
senc
e th
ere.
35M
ovan
ts re
fer t
o “C
uban
” ju
rors
. Of c
ours
e, a
ll ve
nire
pers
ons
of C
uban
orig
in o
r bac
kgro
und
wer
e C
uban
Am
eric
ans.
See
28 U
.S.C
. §1
865
(Uni
ted
Stat
es c
itize
nshi
p as
pre
requ
isite
for
fe
dera
l jur
y se
rvic
e). F
urth
er, t
he in
divi
dual
s di
scus
sed
by M
ovan
ts w
ere
not “
juro
rs”;
they
are
al
l ven
irepe
rson
s w
ho w
ere
not s
elec
ted
to s
erve
on
the
jury
. As
the
cour
t is
awar
e, n
o C
uban
-A
mer
ican
s ser
ved
on th
e ju
ry. S
ee C
ampa
2, 4
59 F
.3d
at 1
135-
1136
.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 46
of 6
1
47
stat
istic
ally
sou
nd f
or t
he k
ind
of e
xtra
pola
tion
they
pro
ject
. Fu
rther
mor
e, o
ne o
f th
ese
five
supp
osed
ly C
uban
-Am
eric
an v
enire
pers
ons
was
not
Cub
an-A
mer
ican
. Se
e D
E/cr
147
4:11
17-
1128
, 117
5-11
77(v
enire
pers
on d
iscu
sses
hav
ing
clos
e C
uban
Am
eric
an f
riend
s, bu
t not
bei
ng
Cub
an, h
avin
g ev
er li
ved
ther
e or
hav
ing
fam
ily o
r clo
se fr
iend
s liv
ing
ther
e). S
ee a
lso
2003
WL
2524
5480
at
*21,
co-d
efen
dant
Gue
rrer
o’s
appe
llate
brie
f de
scrib
ing
this
ven
irepe
rson
as
“His
pani
c, b
ut n
on-C
uban
.”Th
e br
ief
furth
er d
iscu
ssed
and
cite
dth
is v
enire
pers
on a
s on
e w
ho
expr
esse
d fe
ar o
f be
ing
on th
e ju
ry, s
ee id
. at 1
9-22
, com
plet
ely
inco
nsis
tent
lyw
ith M
ovan
ts’
conj
ectu
re th
at s
he w
as tr
ying
to g
et o
n th
e ju
ry.36
Fina
lly,
and
mos
t im
porta
nt,
Mov
ants
igno
re t
hat
thes
e ve
nire
pers
ons
wer
e no
t, as
Mov
ants
now
cla
im, t
ryin
g to
get
on
the
jury
but
rath
er w
ere,
in th
eir o
wn
prev
ious
wor
ds, “
clos
e
calls
”fo
r cau
se-s
trike
s du
e to
thei
r mix
ed p
rese
ntat
ion.
See
DE/
cr 1
474:
1181
(Mov
ant’s
cou
nsel
:
“I w
ill a
dmit
it’s
a cl
ose
call”
); 12
48-1
249
(Mov
ant’s
cou
nsel
: “I d
o th
ink
this
mor
ning
we
have
talk
ed to
twel
ve p
eopl
e, m
any
of th
em h
ave
been
clo
se c
alls
. The
y ha
ve a
ll go
ne a
gain
st u
s, th
at
is, t
he C
ourt
has
deni
ed o
ur m
otio
ns to
stri
ke th
em fo
r cau
se, a
nd th
e C
ourt
will
agr
ee th
ey w
ere
clos
e ca
lls. .
. . W
e do
hav
e a
num
ber o
f clo
se c
alls
”). D
efen
se c
ouns
el th
en u
sed
this
“cl
ose
call”
argu
men
t to
seek
, and
rec
eive
,add
ition
al p
erem
ptor
y vo
ir di
re c
halle
nges
, and
the
cour
t agr
eed
that
“th
ere
are
a nu
mbe
r of
ver
y cl
ose
deci
sion
s m
ade
by th
e co
urt t
his
mor
ning
as
to o
rigin
al
stat
emen
ts .
. . th
at su
bseq
uent
ly w
ere
reha
bilit
ated
by
subs
eque
nt a
nsw
ers .
. . .
The
re w
ere
som
e
very
clo
se d
ecis
ions
mad
e by
the
Cou
rt th
is m
orni
ng a
nd o
n th
e ba
sis
of th
at I
do
find
that
the
(Mov
ants
ado
pted
Gue
rrer
o’s
brie
f, se
e no
te
22su
pra.
)Thi
s red
uces
thei
r sta
tistic
al b
ase
to a
n ev
en m
ore
unre
liabl
y sm
all n
umbe
r.
36Th
is v
enire
pers
on a
lso
had
a cr
itica
lly i
ll pa
rent
out
of
tow
n, a
nd e
xpre
ssed
con
cern
abo
ut
visi
ting
the
pare
nt i
f sh
e w
ere
a ju
ror,
see
DE/
cr 1
474:
1125
, –
agai
n, t
otal
ly a
t od
ds w
ith
Mov
ants
’ dep
ictio
n of
ven
irepe
rson
s as a
nglin
g to
serv
e on
the
jury
.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 47
of 6
1
48
defe
ndan
ts in
tota
lity
shou
ld b
e en
title
d to
an
addi
tiona
l thr
ee c
halle
nges
.” S
ee D
E/cr
147
4:13
82-
1384
.37
The
reco
rd r
efut
esM
ovan
ts’
spec
ulat
ion
that
thes
e fiv
e (w
hich
sho
uld
be f
our)
Cub
an-
Am
eric
an v
enire
pers
ons
cam
e to
cou
rt w
ith a
mis
sion
to g
et o
n th
e ju
ry, f
uele
d by
the
Ferr
eira
artic
le. T
he v
oir
dire
rec
ord
of e
ach
refle
cts
the
vary
ing
and
nuan
ced
circ
umst
ance
s th
at m
ade
thei
r cau
se c
halle
nges
“cl
ose
calls
,” n
ot a
driv
e to
be
sele
cted
for t
he ju
ry.N
or is
ther
e an
ythi
ng
in th
e re
cord
to s
ugge
st th
at a
ny o
f the
se v
enire
pers
ons
igno
red
or v
iola
ted
the
cour
t’s re
peat
ed
inst
ruct
ions
not
to
read
med
ia a
ccou
nts
abou
t th
e ca
se.
A j
ury
(and
, w
e su
bmit,
a v
enire
) is
pres
umed
to h
ave
follo
wed
the
cour
t’sin
stru
ctio
ns, U
nite
d St
ates
v. M
ock,
523
F.3
d 12
99, 1
303
(11t
h C
ir.20
08),
and
Mov
ants
’ ba
sele
ss s
pecu
latio
n ab
out t
he F
erre
ira a
rticl
e do
es n
ot in
any
way
rebu
t tha
t pre
sum
ptio
n, o
r war
rant
furth
er in
quiry
.
Fina
lly, M
ovan
ts’ c
laim
rela
ting
to th
e Fe
rrei
raar
ticle
com
es fa
r, fa
r too
late
in th
e da
y.
The
artic
le w
as p
ublis
hed
Sund
ay,
Dec
embe
r 3,
200
0, a
nd t
he t
ime
to b
ring
it to
the
cou
rt’s
atte
ntio
n, if
the
defe
nse
was
con
cern
ed a
bout
it, w
as w
hen
cour
t rec
onve
ned
the
next
day
, and
coul
d ha
ve a
ddre
ssed
the
conc
ern.
The
re is
no
“cau
se”
for M
ovan
ts to
wai
t unt
il 20
11 to
men
tion
it. N
or is
ther
e an
y ba
sis
for M
ovan
ts to
cla
im th
at it
is o
nly
the
BB
G-p
aym
ent i
nfor
mat
ion
that
allo
wed
the
m t
o ap
prec
iate
the
sig
nific
ance
of
the
pros
pect
of
veni
re e
xpos
ure
to n
ewsp
aper
stor
ies.
On
the
cont
rary
, all
defe
nse
coun
sel,
and
the
cour
t, w
ere
acut
ely
attu
ned
to th
is is
sue
at
the
time
of th
e tri
al. C
ouns
el’s
sile
nce
abou
t the
arti
cle
at th
e tim
e sh
owed
that
they
wer
e no
t
conc
erne
d ab
out
it an
d in
fac
t re
cogn
ized
tha
t th
e ve
nire
pers
ons
on w
hom
the
y no
w s
eek
to
37M
ovan
ts a
ckno
wle
dged
, and
arg
ued
base
d on
, the
“cl
ose
call”
them
e on
app
eal.
See
2003
WL
2524
5469
at
*4;
2005
WL
4638
011
at *
14;
*27
(not
ing
veni
repe
rson
s’“o
wn
stat
emen
ts o
f he
sita
ncy
as t
ofa
irnes
s is
sues
,” a
t od
ds w
ith M
ovan
ts’
curr
ent
clai
m t
hat
thes
e ve
nire
pers
ons
engi
neer
ed re
spon
ses
so a
s to
be
sele
cted
for t
he ju
ry);
2006
WL
2252
113
at *
15-*
16. T
hese
are
ap
pella
te b
riefs
of M
ovan
t Cam
pa.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 48
of 6
1
49
refo
cus
wer
e, a
s th
ey e
stab
lishe
d th
en, “
clos
e ca
lls”
for
caus
e-ch
alle
nges
, and
a p
redi
cate
to b
e
allo
wed
mor
e pe
rem
ptor
y ch
alle
nges
.N
one
of t
hese
ven
irepe
rson
s w
as s
eate
d, a
nd M
ovan
ts
wer
e le
ft w
ith e
xces
s pe
rem
ptor
y st
rikes
tha
t w
ere
neve
r ex
erci
sed
even
afte
r st
rikin
g th
ese
veni
repe
rson
s.
For
all
the
fore
goin
g re
ason
s, M
ovan
ts’
clai
m c
once
rnin
g th
e B
BG
pay
men
ts t
o
jour
nalis
ts s
houl
d be
den
ied.
Fur
ther
mor
e, t
he g
over
nmen
t re
spec
tfully
sub
mits
tha
t th
e co
urt
may
, and
sho
uld,
den
y th
e cl
aim
with
out e
vide
ntia
ry h
earin
g. F
or o
ne th
ing,
eve
n if
Mov
ants
’
clai
ms w
ere
true,
Mov
ants
cann
ot sh
ow p
reju
dice
. The
Cou
rt of
App
eals
has
foun
d th
at th
eir t
rial
was
fai
r, in
clud
ing
as t
o th
e is
sues
the
y re
-targ
et h
ere.
Cam
pa 2
est
ablis
hes
that
per
vasi
ve,
disa
blin
g pr
ejud
ice
of th
e so
uth
Flor
ida
veni
re c
ould
not
be
pres
umed
and
that
if th
ere
wer
e an
y
pres
umpt
ive
prej
udic
e th
e pr
esum
ptio
n w
as r
ebut
ted
by t
he c
ourt’
s m
odel
voi
r-di
re a
nd t
rial
man
agem
ent;
that
the
jur
y th
at t
ried
Mov
ants
was
not
act
ually
bia
sed;
and
tha
t th
e ju
ry w
as
prop
erly
insu
late
d fr
om o
utsi
de m
edia
and
influ
ence
.Add
ition
ally
, Mov
ants
’ Br
ady
clai
m f
ails
on s
ever
al b
ases
, inc
ludi
ng th
e m
ater
ialit
y pr
ong,
whi
ch is
ano
ther
way
of
conn
otin
g pr
ejud
ice.
Whe
re p
reju
dice
has
not
bee
n sh
own,
and
can
not b
e sh
own,
ther
e is
no
reas
on fo
r an
evid
entia
ry
hear
ing
on a
ny o
ther
issu
es. S
ee B
oulo
ute
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, 645
F.S
upp.
2d
125,
133
(E.D
.N.Y
.
2009
)(co
urt f
inds
that
kno
wle
dge
of im
peac
hmen
t inf
orm
atio
n ca
nnot
be
impu
ted
to p
rose
cuto
rs,
and
also
that
info
rmat
ion
is n
ot m
ater
ial;
requ
est f
or h
earin
g to
exp
lore
impu
ted-
know
ledg
e is
sue
deni
ed;
“suc
h an
inq
uiry
is
unne
cess
ary
beca
use
. .
. th
e al
lege
dly
with
held
inf
orm
atio
n is
insu
ffic
ient
ly m
ater
ial t
o sa
tisfy
the
prej
udic
e re
quire
men
t”);
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Bra
dley
, 200
9 W
L
1064
470
at *
3 (S
.D. G
A. 2
009)
(in
form
atio
n de
fens
e so
ught
to
impu
te t
o pr
osec
utor
was
not
mat
eria
l an
d co
uld
not
be s
aid
to u
nder
min
e co
nfid
ence
in
the
outc
ome
of t
he t
rial;
“[a]
s no
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 49
of 6
1
50
evid
entia
ry h
earin
g ca
n cu
re t
his
defe
ct i
n th
e de
fend
ant’s
Bra
dycl
aim
, th
e C
ourt
deni
es t
he
requ
est f
or su
ch a
hea
ring”
).
Cla
ims
base
d on
mer
e su
ppos
ition
or
conj
ectu
re d
o no
t war
rant
an
evid
entia
ry h
earin
g.
Con
clus
ory
and
spec
ulat
ive
clai
ms
shou
ld n
ot b
e af
ford
ed a
n ev
iden
tiary
hea
ring.
See
Lyn
n v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es, s
upra
, 365
F.3
d at
123
9(a
ffirm
ing
dist
rict c
ourt’
s den
ial o
f §22
55 p
etiti
on w
ithou
t
evid
entia
ry
hear
ing,
an
d co
llect
ing
case
s st
atin
g th
at
mer
ely
conc
luso
ry
alle
gatio
ns
and
unsu
ppor
ted
gene
raliz
atio
ns d
o no
t war
rant
evi
dent
iary
hea
ring)
.Thu
s, w
hen
Mov
ants
see
k to
mov
e fr
om th
e fa
ct o
f B
BG
pay
men
ts to
jour
nalis
ts f
or R
adio
and
TV
Mar
ti ap
pear
ance
s, to
a
clai
med
impa
ct o
n so
uth
Flor
ida
from
the
jour
nalis
ts’ n
on-R
adio
and
TV
Mar
ti pu
blic
atio
ns, t
hey
are
mer
ely
supp
osin
g an
d co
njec
turin
g, w
ith n
o ev
iden
tiary
bas
is a
nd n
o rig
ht to
fish
for o
ne in
an e
vide
ntia
ry h
earin
g.38
Sim
ilarly
, the
y st
ate
no b
asis
for
link
ing
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
to th
e pr
osec
utio
n te
am in
this
cas
e. S
ee U
nite
d St
ates
v. E
dwar
ds,4
42 F
.3d
258,
267
nn.
7,9
(5th
Cir.
200
6). T
here
, §22
55
petit
ione
rscl
aim
edth
at “
pros
ecut
ors
wer
e ap
pare
ntly
aw
are
of a
llege
d Br
ady
mat
eria
l,”
(em
phas
is in
orig
inal
)and
end
eavo
red
to s
uppo
rt th
eir c
laim
by
asse
rting
that
“‘th
e go
vern
men
t
has
not d
enie
d’ k
now
ledg
e of
this
evi
denc
e.”
The
cour
t fou
nd th
at th
is a
rgum
ent o
f su
ppor
t by
the
gove
rnm
ent’s
non
-den
ial i
gnor
ed th
at th
e §2
255
petit
ione
rs, “
as th
e pa
rties
alle
ging
a B
rady
viol
atio
n, h
ave
the
burd
en o
f est
ablis
hing
all
thre
e pr
ongs
of t
he B
rady
test
.”Ev
iden
tiary
hea
ring
was
den
ied
beca
use
the
appe
llant
s “h
ave
faile
d to
pro
vide
‘in
depe
nden
t in
dici
a’ o
f th
e lik
ely
38Th
is is
esp
ecia
lly s
o w
here
the
mat
eria
ls th
ey re
fere
nce,
suc
h as
the
unde
rlyin
g co
ntra
cts
and
purc
hase
ord
ers,
refu
te th
eir
conj
ectu
re, s
how
ing
paym
ent e
xclu
sive
ly f
or R
adio
and
TV
Mar
ti w
ork.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 50
of 6
1
51
mer
its o
f th
eir
alle
gatio
ns a
nd in
stea
d re
ly o
n sp
ecul
atio
n,”
whi
ch is
insu
ffic
ient
to w
arra
nt a
n
evid
entia
ry h
earin
g.39
Mov
ants
sta
te th
at a
t an
evid
entia
ry h
earin
g, th
ey w
ould
pre
sent
add
ition
al n
ews
artic
les,
and
that
the
ones
refe
renc
ed in
thei
r brie
f are
onl
y “r
epre
sent
ativ
e,”
or a
“sa
mpl
ing.
” Se
e D
E/LM
5:14
-15,
DE/
RC
1-2
:12-
13. B
ut m
edia
arti
cles
and
pub
licat
ions
nee
d no
evi
dent
iary
hea
ring
for
subm
issi
on t
o th
e co
urt,
and
ther
e is
no
excu
se f
or d
elay
ed p
rese
ntat
ion.
The
se n
ews
artic
les
wer
e w
ritte
n m
ore
than
10
year
s ag
o, a
nd c
ould
hav
e be
en p
rese
nted
at
the
time
of M
ovan
ts’
orig
inal
cha
nge-
of-v
enue
arg
umen
ts,
whi
ch w
ere
rais
ed a
s ea
rly a
s Ja
nuar
y, 2
000.
See
DE/
cr
329:
13. E
ven
if M
ovan
ts c
laim
tha
t th
ey w
ere
not
aler
ted
to t
he s
igni
fican
ce o
f fin
ding
mor
e
artic
les
until
they
kne
w a
bout
the
BB
G p
aym
ents
, tha
t occ
urre
d no
late
r th
an S
epte
mbe
r, 20
06,
whe
n th
e M
iam
i Her
ald
publ
ishe
d its
sto
ry, s
ee A
ttach
men
t A, a
ppro
xim
atel
y fiv
e ye
ars
befo
re
the
filin
g of
Mov
ants
’§22
55 m
otio
ns.
Mov
ants
als
o st
ate
that
at a
n ev
iden
tiary
hea
ring
they
cou
ld s
uppo
rt in
dica
tions
that
new
s
repo
rts b
y “f
unde
d” re
porte
rs im
pact
ed th
e ju
ry-s
elec
tion
proc
ess,
but t
hey
artic
ulat
e no
bas
isfo
r
this
bal
d al
lega
tion.
DE/
RC
1-2
:4;
see
also
DE/
LM 5
:5.W
hile
a §
2255
pet
ition
er “
need
onl
y
39In
a s
imila
r mis
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
thei
r bur
den,
Mov
ant C
ampa
arg
ues
that
the
gove
rnm
ent h
as
not d
ispu
ted
or e
xpla
ined
(pr
esum
ably
aga
in r
efer
ring
to g
over
nmen
t res
pons
e to
co-
defe
ndan
t H
erna
ndez
’s §
2255
mot
ion)
the
diff
icul
ties
enco
unte
red
in o
btai
ning
the
BB
G i
nfor
mat
ion
thro
ugh
Free
dom
of
Info
rmat
ion
Act
(“F
OIA
”) l
itiga
tion.
Mov
ant
Cam
pa a
rgue
s th
at a
n ev
iden
tiary
hea
ring
“wou
ld s
hed
furth
er li
ght o
n th
e tru
th.”
See
DE/
RC
1-2
:11-
12. H
e st
ates
no
basi
s fo
r thi
s co
urt’s
revi
ew o
f his
§22
55 m
otio
n to
bec
ome
an a
ncill
ary
foru
m fo
r FO
IA c
laim
s al
read
y lit
igat
ed e
lsew
here
. Se
e N
atio
nal
Com
mitt
ee t
o Fr
ee t
he C
uban
Fiv
e v.
Bro
adca
stin
g Bo
ard
of G
over
nors
, C
ase
No.
09-
cv-0
1713
-RM
C (
D.D
.C.
2009
), D
ocke
t En
try 2
4, 2
5 (M
emor
andu
m O
pini
on a
nd O
rder
of U
nite
d St
ates
Dis
trict
Jud
ge R
osem
ary
M. C
olly
er g
rant
ing
defe
ndan
t’s m
otio
n fo
r sum
mar
y ju
dgm
ent,
base
d on
pla
intif
f’s
failu
re to
exh
aust
adm
inis
trativ
e re
med
ies,
but w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce s
o as
to a
llow
nar
row
ing
of r
eque
st).
Mov
ants
wer
e ev
entu
ally
ab
le to
obt
ain
the
BB
G a
nd O
CB
con
tract
and
pur
chas
e-or
der
reco
rds
thei
r su
ppor
ters
soug
ht,
but
to n
o av
ail;
as d
iscu
ssed
sup
ra, a
nd a
s re
flect
ed in
Atta
chm
ent
B, t
he r
ecor
ds u
nder
min
e,
rath
er th
an su
ppor
t, M
ovan
ts’ c
laim
s.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 51
of 6
1
52
alle
ge–
not p
rove
” el
igib
le c
laim
s, w
hat m
ust b
e al
lege
d m
ust g
o be
yond
bar
e co
nclu
sion
, to
stat
e “r
easo
nabl
y sp
ecifi
c, n
on-c
oncl
usor
y fa
cts
that
, if t
rue,
wou
ld e
ntitl
e hi
m to
relie
f”Ar
on v
.
Uni
ted
Stat
es,
291
F.3d
708
,71
5 n.
6 (1
1thC
ir. 2
002)
(em
phas
is i
n or
igin
al).
The
only
new
s
artic
le M
ovan
tsre
fere
nce
in re
gard
to ju
ry-s
elec
tion
was
writ
ten
by re
porte
r Rui
Fer
reira
, who
m
they
do
not
clai
m w
as a
gov
ernm
ent-“
fund
ed”
repo
rter.
Thei
r th
eory
abo
ut F
erre
ira’s
arti
cle
impa
ctin
g th
e ve
nire
is s
heer
spe
cula
tion
and
cont
radi
cted
by
the
reco
rd, i
nclu
ding
the
cour
t’s
inst
ruct
ions
to th
e ve
nire
; the
ir ow
n “c
lose
-cal
l” a
rgum
ent:
and
thei
r app
ella
te b
riefs
.
An
evid
entia
ry h
earin
g is
not
cal
led
for
by t
his
unsu
ppor
ted
theo
ry,
nor
by M
ovan
ts’
spec
ulat
ive
theo
ry o
f re
porte
r “c
o-op
tatio
n.”
See
Edw
ards
, sup
ra, 4
42 F
.3d
at 2
68 n
.10
(§22
55
petit
ione
r ur
ged
the
cour
t “t
o gr
ant
an e
vide
ntia
ry h
earin
g to
exp
lore
the
ir th
eory
fur
ther
,
[how
ever
] w
e de
clin
e to
do
so. D
ue t
o th
e sp
ecul
ativ
e an
d co
nclu
sory
nat
ure
of [
petit
ione
rs’]
alle
gatio
ns .
. . .
, suc
h a
hear
ing
wou
ld se
rve
as n
othi
ng m
ore
than
a fi
shin
g ex
pedi
tion.
”)Th
is is
espe
cial
ly s
o be
caus
e ev
en i
f M
ovan
ts’
co-o
ptat
ion
theo
ry w
ere
corr
ect,
they
wou
ld n
ot b
e
entit
led
to re
lief d
ue to
lack
of p
reju
dice
.
2.M
ovan
ts ha
d ef
fect
ive
repr
esen
tatio
n of
cou
nsel
with
reg
ard
to a
tw
o-le
vel
Gui
delin
es
adju
stmen
t for
obs
truct
ion
of ju
stice
, whi
ch w
as p
rope
rly im
pose
d.
Mov
ants
both
cla
im th
at th
eir s
ente
ncin
g gu
idel
ines
wer
e im
prop
erly
enh
ance
d tw
o le
vels
for o
bstru
ctio
n of
just
ice.
Ord
inar
ily, s
ente
ncin
g gu
idel
ine
erro
rs a
re n
ot c
ogni
zabl
e on
col
late
ral
revi
ew; h
owev
er, i
f cou
ched
as
inef
fect
ive-
assi
stan
ce-o
f-co
unse
l cla
ims,
they
may
be
revi
ewed
.
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Cru
tchf
ield
, 200
7 W
L 20
2200
1 at
*2
(S.D
. AL.
200
7), c
iting
Cof
ske
v. U
nite
d
Stat
es,
290
F.3d
437
, 44
1 (1
stC
ir. 2
002)
. H
ere,
eac
h M
ovan
t’s c
ouns
el,
who
als
o w
ere
trial
coun
sel,
asse
rt th
eir
own
inef
fect
iven
ess
in a
ddre
ssin
g th
is i
ssue
. H
owev
er,
the
two-
leve
l
guid
elin
e ad
just
men
t for
obs
truct
ion
of ju
stic
e w
as p
rope
rly im
pose
d, a
nd e
ach
coun
sel l
itiga
ted
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 52
of 6
1
53
the
issu
e pr
oper
ly a
nd e
ffec
tivel
y.Th
eir p
erfo
rman
ce w
as n
otde
ficie
nt, a
nd th
ere
is n
o pr
ejud
ice
beca
use
the
enha
ncem
ent w
as p
rope
r; ac
cord
ingl
y, th
eir c
laim
doe
s no
t mee
t the
Str
ickl
and
test
for i
neff
ectiv
e as
sist
ance
of c
ouns
el.I
n ad
ditio
n, a
s di
scus
sed
at th
e en
d of
this
sec
tion,
Mov
ant
Med
ina’
s cl
aim
was
wai
ved
by a
Sen
tenc
ing
Agr
eem
ent
he e
nter
ed i
nto,
agr
eein
g to
the
guid
elin
e ad
just
men
t and
agr
eein
g no
t to
mak
e a
colla
tera
l atta
ck o
n hi
s atto
rney
’s re
pres
enta
tion
at se
nten
cing
.
Bot
h M
ovan
ts a
ppea
red
in c
ourt
befo
re M
agis
trate
Jud
ge B
arry
Gar
ber
on M
onda
y,
Sept
embe
r 14
, 199
8, f
or in
itial
app
eara
nce,
alo
ng w
ith th
eir
eigh
t co-
defe
ndan
ts w
ho a
lso
had
been
arr
este
dth
at w
eeke
nd.
See
DE/
cr 4
4. M
agis
trate
Jud
ge G
arbe
r be
gan
the
hear
ing
by
advi
sing
the
defe
ndan
ts o
f the
ir rig
hts.
This
was
a v
ery
full
advi
ce o
f rig
hts,
and
incl
uded
adv
ice
of th
e rig
ht to
rem
ain
sile
nt, c
ontra
ry to
Mov
ant M
edin
a’s
clai
m, D
E/LM
5:3
4, th
at s
uch
advi
ce
was
om
itted
.40
All
right
, at
this
tim
e th
e C
ourt
is g
oing
to
advi
seea
ch o
f yo
u of
rig
hts
that
are
gu
aran
tied
[sic
] to
you
by
the
cons
titut
ion
and
law
s of
thi
s co
untry
. If
afte
r I’v
e co
mpl
eted
giv
ing
you
this
adv
ice
of ri
ghts
, you
feel
that
you
don
’t un
ders
tand
wha
t I t
old
you,
rais
e yo
ur h
and
and
I’ll a
ttem
pt to
bet
ter e
xpla
in it
to y
ou.
See
DE/
cr 4
4:2-
4. M
agis
trate
Judg
e G
arbe
r adv
ised
, in
perti
nent
par
t:
Each
of y
ou h
ave
the
right
to re
fuse
to m
ake
any
stat
emen
ts w
hats
oeve
r abo
ut y
our
case
. In
the
eve
nt y
ou d
o m
ake
such
a s
tate
men
t, I
wan
t yo
u to
und
erst
and
that
st
atem
ent c
an, a
nd p
roba
bly
wou
ld b
e us
ed a
gain
st y
ou in
futu
re c
ourt
proc
eedi
ngs.
Each
of y
ou a
re e
ntitl
ed to
be
repr
esen
ted
by c
ouns
el .
. .
Do
each
of y
ou u
nder
stan
d th
e A
dvic
e of
Rig
hts t
he C
ourt
has j
ust g
iven
you
.Fo
r th
e re
cord
, se
eing
no
nega
tive
resp
onse
, th
e C
ourt
assu
mes
eac
h de
fend
ant
fully
und
erst
ands
his
or h
er ri
ghts
.
40M
ovan
t Cam
pa m
akes
a s
omew
hat m
ore
guar
ded
clai
m, t
hat M
agis
trate
Jud
ge G
arbe
r ga
ve
“no
advi
ce r
egar
ding
a r
ight
to
rem
ain
sile
nt i
f th
ey w
ere
calle
d up
by
the
nam
es u
sed
in t
he
char
ging
doc
umen
t,” D
E/R
C 1
-2:3
6. M
ovan
t Cam
pa p
rovi
des
no b
asis
to s
ugge
st th
at th
ere
is a
rig
ht to
be
advi
sed
of th
e rig
ht to
rem
ain
sile
nt in
par
ticul
ariz
ed c
ircum
stan
ces;
on
the
cont
rary
, ha
d M
agis
trate
Jud
ge G
arbe
r lim
ited
that
rig
ht t
o ce
rtain
circ
umst
ance
s, he
cou
ld h
ave
been
fa
ulte
d. T
he ri
ght t
o re
mai
n si
lent
that
Mag
istra
te J
udge
Gar
ber a
dvis
ed o
f was
unc
ondi
tiona
l.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 53
of 6
1
54
DE/
cr 4
4:2-
4.M
agis
trate
Jud
ge G
arbe
r th
en c
alle
d fo
rwar
d th
ree
of t
he d
efen
dant
s: t
he t
wo
Mov
ants
and
one
oth
er f
or w
hom
cou
nsel
mad
e a
tem
pora
ry a
ppea
ranc
e. T
he o
ther
two
–th
e
Mov
ants
–sa
id
they
w
ante
d to
ha
ve
coun
sel
appo
inte
d,
and
Mag
istra
te
Judg
e G
arbe
r
adm
inis
tere
d th
e oa
th to
them
. DE/
cr 4
4:5.
Mag
istra
te J
udge
Gar
ber
then
mad
e in
quiry
of
each
Mov
ant s
epar
atel
y, a
skin
g ea
ch, a
mon
g ot
her t
hing
s,hi
s nam
e. E
ach
resp
onde
d by
pro
vidi
ng a
nd
stat
ing
the
fals
e id
entit
y he
was
usi
ng: “
Rub
en C
ampa
,” D
E/cr
44:
6, a
nd “
Luis
Med
ina,
” D
E/cr
44:1
1.Th
e go
vern
men
t req
uest
ed p
re-tr
ial d
eten
tion
as to
eac
h of
the
defe
ndan
ts, a
nd s
ough
t a
cont
inua
nce
of t
he h
earin
g, D
E/cr
44:
8, w
hich
the
cou
rt gr
ante
d.M
ovan
t M
edin
a’s
hear
ing
cont
inue
d on
Wed
nesd
ay, S
epte
mbe
r 16
, DE/
cr 6
1, a
nd M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
hea
ring
cont
inue
d on
Frid
ay, S
epte
mbe
r 18,
DE/
cr 8
8. A
t the
se c
ontin
ued
hear
ings
, Mov
ants
did
not
spea
k.
Follo
win
g M
ovan
ts’
conv
ictio
ns, t
he c
ourt’
s Pr
obat
ion
Off
ice
prep
ared
a d
etai
led
Pre-
Sent
ence
Rep
ort (
“PSR
”) a
s to
eac
h. T
he P
SRs
for M
ovan
t Med
ina
and
for M
ovan
t Cam
pa e
ach
reco
mm
ende
d an
adj
ustm
ent f
or o
bstru
ctio
n of
just
ice,
with
a b
ack-
up d
iscu
ssio
n. T
he b
ack-
up
disc
ussi
on, w
hich
is
verb
atim
ide
ntic
al f
or e
ach,
app
ears
in
Mov
ant
Med
ina’
s or
igin
al P
SR a
t
¶67
and
in h
is P
SR re
vise
d as
of 1
/3/0
2 at
¶57
; and
in M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
orig
inal
and
firs
t rev
ised
PSR
at ¶
67 a
nd in
his
PSR
revi
sed
as o
f 12/
21/0
1 at
¶57
. In
all i
nsta
nces
the
text
is th
e sa
me,
and
refe
renc
es s
peci
fical
ly e
ach
of t
hese
Mov
ants
(an
d co
-def
enda
nt G
erar
do H
erna
ndez
) ha
ving
fals
ely
stat
ed u
nder
oat
h, a
t the
Sep
tem
ber 1
4, 1
998,
initi
al-a
ppea
ranc
e he
arin
g be
fore
Mag
istra
te
Judg
e G
arbe
r, th
eir
fals
e id
entit
ies
as,
resp
ectiv
ely,
Lu
is
Med
ina,
R
uben
C
ampa
(a
nd
Her
nand
ez’s
fals
e na
me)
. Th
e PS
Rs
para
grap
h di
d no
t dis
cuss
or r
efer
ence
the
Sept
embe
r 16
or
Sept
embe
r 18
hear
ings
.
Mov
ant
Med
ina
obje
cted
to
the
Prob
atio
n O
ffic
e’s
reco
mm
enda
tion
of a
tw
o-le
vel
incr
ease
for
obs
truct
ion
of ju
stic
e. S
ee D
E/cr
137
9:18
-21,
sta
ting
seve
ral g
roun
ds, i
nclu
ding
an
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 54
of 6
1
55
argu
men
t suc
h as
he
mak
es in
his
§22
55 m
otio
n: “
At m
agis
trate
cou
rt, h
e si
mpl
y re
spon
ded
to
the
sum
mon
s in
that
nam
e,”
DE/
cr 1
379:
21. T
he U
nite
d St
ates
’ re
spon
se to
Mov
ant M
edin
a’s
obje
ctio
n, D
E/cr
141
5:18
-22,
and
its r
espo
nse
to o
bjec
tion
to t
he s
ame
adju
stm
ent
by c
o-
defe
ndan
t H
erna
ndez
, D
E/cr
140
9:10
-14,
ref
eren
ced
the
Sept
embe
r 14
, 19
98,
hear
ing,
aga
in
mak
ing
it cl
ear
that
the
basi
s fo
r th
e ob
stru
ctio
n of
just
ice
enha
ncem
ent
was
for
aff
irmat
ivel
y
fals
e sw
orn
test
imon
y as
to id
entit
y on
that
day
, not
for
sta
ndin
g m
ute.
DE/
cr 1
415:
19; D
E/cr
1409
:10.
Mov
ant C
ampa
did
not
obj
ect t
o th
e ad
just
men
t. D
E/cr
144
8:4-
5.Th
e U
nite
d St
ates
’
resp
onse
als
o ci
ted
case
law
cle
arly
sup
porti
ng th
e pr
oprie
ty o
f th
e ad
just
men
t: U
nite
d St
ates
v.
Ruff,
79
F.3d
123
, 126
(11th
Cir.
199
6) (o
bstru
ctio
n ad
just
men
t war
rant
ed u
pon
defe
ndan
t’s ly
ing
to m
agis
trate
judg
e co
ncer
ning
fin
anci
al s
ituat
ion)
; Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Hitt
, 164
F.3
d 13
70,
1371
(11th
Cir.
199
9) (s
ame)
; Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Maf
anya
, 24
F.3d
412
, 415
(2d
Cir.
199
4) (o
bstru
ctio
n
enha
ncem
ent
appr
opria
te w
here
def
enda
nt f
alse
ly i
dent
ified
him
self
to m
agis
trate
jud
ge e
ven
thou
gh g
over
nmen
t pos
sess
ed tr
ue id
entit
y).
At s
ente
ncin
g, th
e co
urt a
ddre
ssed
the
obje
ctio
ns to
the
obst
ruct
ion-
of-ju
stic
e ad
just
men
t,
and
over
rule
d th
em.
In d
oing
so,
the
cou
rt m
ade
it ex
plic
it th
at t
he o
bstru
ctio
n en
hanc
emen
t
appl
ied
base
d on
the
fal
se s
wor
n te
stim
ony
on S
epte
mbe
r 14
, 19
98,
not
base
d on
“st
andi
ng
mut
e” o
n so
me
othe
r occ
asio
n.Se
e, a
s to
Mov
ant M
edin
a, D
E/cr
145
1:9-
11;41
41Th
e co
urt s
aid:
as to
co-
defe
ndan
t
At f
irst a
ppea
ranc
e in
the
pros
ecut
ion
of th
is c
ase,
Mr.
Laba
nino
who
at t
hat t
ime
was
not
kno
wn
by w
hat h
e as
serte
d at
the
time
--I b
elie
ve it
was
the
first
day
of t
rial,
asse
rted
at th
e fir
st d
ay o
f tri
al th
roug
h co
unse
l his
true
nam
e R
amon
Lab
anin
o; w
as in
form
ed b
y M
agis
trate
Jud
ge G
arbe
r on
Sep
tem
ber
14, 1
998
of h
is r
ight
to r
efus
e to
mak
e an
yst
atem
ent w
hats
oeve
r re
gard
ing
his
case
and
the
fact
s th
at if
he
did
mak
e a
stat
emen
t, th
at th
e st
atem
ent c
an a
nd p
roba
bly
wou
ld b
e us
ed a
gain
st h
im i
n fu
rther
cou
rt pr
ocee
ding
s.Ju
dge
Gar
ber
then
wen
t on
to
advi
se t
his
defe
ndan
t and
the
othe
r def
enda
nts
who
wer
e pr
esen
t tha
t day
of t
he a
vaila
bilit
y of
cou
nsel
to b
e ap
poin
ted
and
the
fact
the
re w
ill b
e a
prob
able
cau
se h
earin
g be
fore
the
Cou
rt to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
or n
ot th
ey w
ould
be
deta
ined
or n
ot d
etai
ned
pend
ing
trial
.[f
ootn
ote
cont
inue
d]
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 55
of 6
1
56
Her
nand
ez, D
E/cr
144
9:10
-12.
Thus
, the
rec
ord
coul
d no
t be
mor
e cl
ear:
The
obst
ruct
ion
of
just
ice
enha
ncem
ent w
as im
pose
d ba
sed
on s
tate
men
ts m
ade
by M
ovan
ts, a
nd b
y H
erna
ndez
, at
the
Sept
embe
r 14,
199
8, in
itial
app
eara
nce
hear
ing,
not
bas
ed o
n M
ovan
ts s
tand
ing
mut
e at
any
late
r hea
ring.
On
appe
al,
Mov
ant
Med
ina
rais
ed a
s an
iss
ue t
he t
wo-
leve
l ob
stru
ctio
n-of
-just
ice
enha
ncem
ent.
See
2003
WL
2524
5479
at *
41-*
44;
2003
WL
2524
5470
at *
19-*
20;2
006
WL
[foo
tnot
e co
ntin
ued]
The
defe
ndan
t was
then
pla
ced
unde
r oat
h an
d Ju
dge
Gar
ber s
tate
d at
pag
e 11
, lin
e 5
[of D
E/cr
44
]. "S
tate
you
r ful
l nam
e."
To
whi
ch th
e de
fend
ant s
tate
d at
line
7, "
Luis
Med
ina.
"
Judg
e G
arbe
r the
n w
ent o
n to
que
stio
n hi
m h
ow o
ld h
e w
as, w
hat w
as h
is h
ome
addr
ess,
whe
ther
he
was
mar
ried
or s
ingl
e.
All
of t
he i
nfor
mat
ion
that
a M
agis
trate
Jud
ge c
olle
cts
thro
ugh
test
imon
y fr
om a
def
enda
nt to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
or n
ot th
e de
fend
ant i
s a ri
sk o
f flig
ht o
r dan
ger
to
the
com
mun
ity a
nd w
heth
er o
r no
t a d
efen
dant
sho
uld
be d
etai
ned
pend
ing
trial
on
thos
e ba
ses.
Mr.
Laba
nino
did
not
hav
e to
ans
wer
any
que
stio
ns a
s th
ey w
ere
aske
d of
him
by
Judg
e G
arbe
r.
Und
er o
ath
he g
ave
a fa
lse
nam
e. N
ote
6 of
the
appl
icat
ion
note
s un
der 3
(c)(
1).1
teac
hes
us th
at
mat
eria
l evi
denc
e m
eans
evi
denc
e, fa
cts,
stat
emen
ts o
r inf
orm
atio
n th
at if
bel
ieve
d w
ould
tend
to
influ
ence
or a
ffec
t the
issu
e un
der d
eter
min
atio
n.
Trut
hful
ren
ditio
n of
a n
ame
or th
e un
truth
ful r
endi
tion
of a
nam
e is
a m
ater
ial f
act w
hen
the
Mag
istra
te J
udge
is
dete
rmin
ing
and
mak
ing
bond
det
erm
inat
ions
. T
he n
ame
give
n by
thi
s de
fend
ant,
if be
lieve
d, w
ould
tend
to in
fluen
ce o
r aff
ect t
he is
sue
unde
r det
erm
inat
ion.
It i
s on
e of
the
fact
ors t
hat t
he M
agis
trate
Judg
e m
ust c
onsi
der.
Ther
efor
e, I
find
purs
uant
to th
e au
thor
ity o
f 3(c
)(1)
.1an
d th
e U
nite
d St
ates
ver
sus R
uff 7
9 F.
3rd
123,
a 1
996
deci
sion
by
the
Elev
enth
Circ
uit,
as w
ell a
s th
e ca
ses
cite
d in
Ruf
f, U
nite
d St
ates
ve
rsus
Maf
anya
, M A
F A
N Y
A, 2
4 F.
3rd
412,
a 1
994
deci
sion
by
the
Seco
nd C
ircui
t an
d U
nite
d St
ates
ver
sus
McD
onne
ll 96
4 F.
2nd
390,
a 1
992
deci
sion
by
the
Fifth
Circ
uit;
that
Mr.
Laba
nino
spe
cific
ally
pro
vide
d a
fals
e st
atem
ent
to M
agis
trate
Jud
ge G
arbe
r at
the
firs
t ap
pear
ance
rega
rdin
g hi
s of
fens
e of
con
vict
ion;
that
this
was
a fa
lse
stat
emen
t mad
e un
der o
ath
and
that
the
del
iber
ate
mis
repr
esen
tatio
n of
the
tru
th w
as m
ater
ial
in t
he
det
erm
inat
ion
that
Ju
dge
Gar
ber n
eede
d to
mak
e as
to b
ond,
as
to a
ppoi
ntm
ents
of c
ouns
el, a
s to
all
the
mat
ters
that
th
e M
agis
trate
Judg
e m
ust c
onsi
der a
t tha
t firs
t app
eara
nce.
Ther
efor
e, th
e tw
o le
vel i
ncre
ase
in p
arag
raph
77
for o
bstru
ctio
n of
just
ice
unde
r 3(c
)(1)
.1 is
wel
l ta
ken
and
the
obje
ctio
n is
den
ied.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 56
of 6
1
57
4877
272,
Issu
e IV
(no
star
pag
ing
avai
labl
e).
Alth
ough
Mov
ant C
ampa
had
not
obj
ecte
d to
the
enha
ncem
ent b
elow
, he
adop
ted
Mov
ant M
edin
a’s
argu
men
ts a
s to
the
enha
ncem
ent,
rais
ing
the
obst
ruct
ion-
of-ju
stic
e en
hanc
emen
t in
Mov
ant C
ampa
’s a
ppea
l as
wel
l.Se
e 20
03 W
L 25
2454
78
at *
XV
I; 20
06 W
L 48
7727
1 at
“ST
ATE
MEN
T R
EGA
RD
ING
AD
OPT
ION
OF
BR
IEFS
OF
OTH
ER A
PPEL
LATN
S” (
no s
tar
pagi
ng a
vaila
ble)
.M
ovan
t M
edin
a’s
appe
llate
arg
umen
ts
stat
ed,
corr
ectly
, th
at t
he o
bstru
ctio
n en
hanc
emen
t ha
d be
en a
pplie
d ba
sed
on a
ffirm
ativ
e
test
imon
y, se
e 20
03 W
L 25
2454
79 a
t *53
(“H
e w
as c
alle
d by
the
nam
e Lu
is M
edin
a to
the
bar o
f
cour
t and
sw
ore
that
it w
as h
is n
ame”
),at
the
initi
al-a
ppea
ranc
e he
arin
g, 2
003
WL
2524
5470
at
*19
(“up
on
his
initi
al
appe
aran
ce”)
; 20
06
WL
4877
272,
Is
sue
IV(“
U.S
.S.G
. §
3C1.
1
Enha
ncem
ent
for
Obs
truct
ion
of J
ustic
e B
ased
on
Prov
isio
n of
Nam
e to
Mag
istra
te J
udge
at
Initi
al A
ppea
ranc
e”).42
Cam
pa 3
aff
irmed
the
sent
enci
ng c
ourt’
s ap
plic
atio
n of
the
two-
leve
l upw
ard
adju
stm
ent
for
obst
ruct
ion
of j
ustic
e. S
ee 5
29 F
.3d
at 1
015-
1015
.43
42M
ovan
t M
edin
a’s
coun
sel
also
ack
now
ledg
ed,
corr
ectly
, at
sen
tenc
ing
that
the
obs
truct
ion
enha
ncem
ent
refe
rred
to
Mov
ant
stat
ing
his
nam
e as
Lui
s M
edin
a be
fore
Mag
istra
te J
udge
G
arbe
r at h
is in
itial
app
eara
nce.
DE/
cr 1
451:
2.
Cam
pa 3
use
d th
e te
rm “
pret
rial
dete
ntio
n he
arin
g” in
des
crib
ing
the
proc
eedi
ng, a
nd M
ovan
ts s
eize
on
that
as
the
basi
s fo
r the
ir
argu
men
t, cl
aim
ing
that
thi
s m
eans
the
y w
ere
wro
ngly
ass
esse
d a
two-
leve
l ob
stru
ctio
n
enha
ncem
ent f
or st
andi
ng m
ute
at th
eir l
ater
pre
-tria
l det
entio
n he
arin
gs. B
ut C
ampa
3’s
wor
ding
does
not
cha
nge
the
reco
rd i
n th
is c
ase,
and
the
pre
trial
dete
ntio
n pr
oces
s st
arte
d at
the
Sept
embe
r 14
hear
ing,
at w
hich
the
gove
rnm
ent s
ough
t pre
trial
det
entio
n as
to a
ll de
fend
ants
.In
any
even
t, C
ampa
3 c
lear
ly u
nder
stoo
d, a
rticu
late
d an
d af
firm
ed o
n th
e ba
sis
that
the
obst
ruct
ion
43C
ampa
3al
so a
ffor
ded
Mov
ant C
ampa
app
ella
te re
view
on
this
issu
e, b
ased
on
his a
dopt
ion
of
Mov
ant M
edin
a’s
argu
men
ts, s
ee C
ampa
3, 5
29 F
.3d
at 1
014;
how
ever
, as
Cam
pa 3
note
d, th
e cl
aim
faile
don
its m
erits
, alo
ng w
ith M
ovan
t Med
ina’
s, id
..
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 57
of 6
1
58
of ju
stic
e en
hanc
emen
t app
lied
to M
ovan
ts’
affir
mat
ive
fals
e st
atem
ents
, not
to s
tand
ing
mut
e.
See
Cam
pa 3
at 1
015-
1016
:
The
adj
ustm
ent w
as b
ased
on
a fin
ding
that
Med
ina
gave
a fa
lse
nam
e to
the
mag
istr
ate
judg
eat
his
pre
trial
det
entio
n he
arin
g. M
edin
a, w
hose
rea
l nam
e is
R
amon
Lab
anin
o, c
once
des
that
he
“sto
od b
y hi
s le
gend
and
sta
ted
that
he
was
L
uis M
edin
a,”
but a
rgue
s tha
t . .
.
Med
ina'
s fal
se st
atem
entc
lear
ly o
ccur
red
with
in th
e sc
ope
of a
pplic
atio
n no
te 1
.
Prov
idin
g a
fals
e na
me
to a
mag
istr
ate
at a
det
entio
n he
arin
g qu
alifi
es a
s ob
stru
ctiv
e co
nduc
t. A
pplic
atio
n no
te
4(f)
lis
ts
“pro
vidi
ng
mat
eria
lly
fals
e in
form
atio
n to
a j
udge
or
mag
istra
te”
as a
n ex
ampl
e of
the
kin
d of
con
duct
to
whi
ch s
ectio
n 3C
1.1
appl
ies.
. . .
. S
ee U
nite
d St
ates
v. T
ran,
285
F.3
d 93
4, 9
40
(10t
h C
ir.20
02)
(“It
is p
lain
that
[th
e de
fend
ant's
] m
isid
entif
icat
ion
of h
imse
lfw
as a
n at
tem
pt to
obs
truct
or
impe
de th
e ad
min
istra
tion
of ju
stic
e, a
nd th
at th
is
atte
mpt
mig
ht w
ell
have
bor
ne f
ruit
at h
is d
eten
tion
hear
ing
if th
e co
urt
had
deci
ded
to re
leas
e hi
m b
ased
on
his a
ppar
ent l
ack
of a
crim
inal
his
tory
.”).
. .
(bol
dfac
e em
phas
es a
dded
).
On
this
rec
ord,
it
is c
lear
tha
t th
e ob
stru
ctio
n of
jus
tice
enha
ncem
ent
was
pro
perly
appl
ied,
that
bot
h M
ovan
ts s
ough
t and
got
app
ella
te re
view
of t
he g
uide
line
adju
stm
ent,
and
that
Cam
pa 3
cor
rect
ly d
eter
min
ed th
at th
e ad
just
men
t was
app
lied
for a
ffirm
ativ
ely
fals
e st
atem
ents
each
Mov
ant m
ade.
The
re w
as n
o er
ror,
and
they
wer
e no
t pen
aliz
ed fo
r sta
ndin
g m
ute,
as
they
argu
e; t
he a
djus
tmen
t pr
oper
ly a
pplie
d, a
s C
ampa
3st
ated
, fo
r pr
ovid
ing
a fa
lse
nam
e to
a
mag
istra
te.A
ccor
ding
ly, t
here
is n
o St
rick
land
pre
judi
ce.
Nor
wer
e co
unse
l’s p
erfo
rman
ces
defic
ient
in
any
way
. M
ovan
t M
edin
a’s
coun
sel
obje
cted
to th
e en
hanc
emen
t and
arg
ued
it vi
goro
usly
on
appe
al. M
ovan
t Cam
pa’s
cou
nsel
did
not
obje
ct a
t th
e di
stric
t co
urt
leve
l, bu
t th
at w
as a
dec
isio
n w
ell
with
in t
he “
wid
e ra
nge
of
reas
onab
le p
rofe
ssio
nal a
ssis
tanc
e”ac
cept
able
und
er th
e St
rick
land
v. W
ashi
ngto
nst
anda
rd, s
ee
466
U.S
. at 6
90. T
he o
bjec
tion
was
not
wel
l tak
en, a
s th
e di
stric
t cou
rt an
d C
ampa
3fo
und,
so
Mov
ant C
ampa
’s c
ouns
el w
as n
ot d
efic
ient
for
not
obj
ectin
g. F
urth
er, c
ompe
tent
cou
nsel
may
,
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 58
of 6
1
59
and
freq
uent
ly d
o, c
hoos
e am
ong
poss
ible
obj
ectio
ns to
rais
e so
as
to h
usba
nd th
e fo
rce
of th
eir
argu
men
t for
mor
e m
erito
rious
cla
ims.
In a
ny e
vent
, Mov
ant C
ampa
was
not
pre
judi
ced
by th
e
non-
obje
ctio
n, s
ince
the
Cou
rt of
App
eals
acc
epte
d hi
s co
unse
l’s e
ffor
t to
rai
se t
he i
ssue
on
appe
al a
nyw
ay, a
nd b
ecau
se th
e cl
aim
wou
ld fa
il ev
en if
obj
ectio
n ha
d be
en ra
ised
, as
it w
as b
y
Mov
ant
Med
ina.
Nor
did
eith
er M
ovan
t su
ffer
Str
ickl
and
prej
udic
e; t
he o
bstru
ctio
n of
jus
tice
adju
stm
ent w
as p
rope
rly a
pplie
d.
Mov
ant
Med
ina’
s ob
stru
ctio
n-en
hanc
emen
t cl
aim
als
o sh
ould
be
deni
ed b
ecau
se h
e
wai
ved
it in
a c
aref
ully
and
nar
row
ly d
raw
n Se
nten
cing
Agr
eem
ent
at h
is r
esen
tenc
ing.
See
DE/
cr17
68-1
. In
tha
t ag
reem
ent,
he a
gree
d th
at t
he t
wo-
leve
l ad
just
men
t fo
r ob
stru
ctio
n of
just
ice
was
cor
rect
; tha
t his
cor
rect
tota
l off
ense
adv
isor
y gu
idel
ine
leve
l was
42,
res
ultin
g in
a
guid
elin
e im
pris
onm
ent
rang
e of
360
mon
ths
to l
ife i
mpr
ison
men
t, D
E/cr
176
8-1:
4-5,
¶7;
and
that
he
wou
ld n
ot s
eek
any
guid
elin
e de
partu
res
or s
ente
nce
varia
nce,
DE/
cr 1
768-
1:5,
¶9.
In
exch
ange
, the
Uni
ted
Stat
es a
gree
d to
join
Mov
ant M
edin
a in
rec
omm
endi
ng a
sen
tenc
e at
the
low
end
of t
he g
uide
line
rang
e, 3
60 m
onth
s, D
E/cr
176
8-1:
5, ¶
8. M
ovan
t Med
ina
also
agr
eed
not
to a
ppea
l a s
ente
nce
of 3
60 m
onth
s, an
d no
t “to
atta
ck c
olla
tera
lly h
is s
ente
nce
base
d on
a c
laim
of in
effe
ctiv
e as
sist
ance
of
coun
sel
at s
ente
ncin
g.”
DE/
cr 1
768-
1:5,
¶11
. At M
ovan
t Med
ina’
s
rese
nten
cing
, the
cou
rt en
gage
d hi
m in
a th
orou
gh a
nd c
aref
ul c
ollo
quy
as to
his
und
erst
andi
ng
of th
is a
gree
men
t, se
e D
E/cr
179
3:8-
22,i
nclu
ding
spe
cific
ally
the
wai
vers
of r
ight
to a
ppea
l and
to a
ttack
col
late
rally
his
atto
rney
’sef
fect
iven
ess a
t sen
tenc
ing.
See
DE/
cr 1
793:
19-2
1.
Mov
ant M
edin
a sh
ould
not
be
able
to re
nege
on
this
agr
eem
ent a
nd to
col
late
rally
atta
ck
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
his
cou
nsel
at
sent
enci
ng.
Mov
ant
Med
ina
rece
ived
a v
ery
subs
tant
ial
cons
ider
atio
n fr
om t
he U
nite
d St
ates
in
this
agr
eem
ent:
reco
mm
enda
tion
of a
sen
tenc
e of
360
mon
ths,
at th
e lo
w e
nd o
f his
sen
tenc
ing
guid
elin
e, w
hich
the
cour
t acc
epte
d, a
s op
pose
d to
life
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 59
of 6
1
60
in p
rison
, whi
ch a
lso
was
with
in th
e ad
viso
ry g
uide
line
rang
e. S
ente
nce
appe
al-
and
colla
tera
l-
atta
ck w
aive
r agr
eem
ents
hav
e be
en fo
und
law
ful a
nd e
nfor
ceab
le b
y th
e C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls.S
ee
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Will
iam
s, 39
6 F.
3d 1
340,
134
2 (1
1th
Cir.
200
5). M
ovan
t Med
ina’
s en
terin
g in
to
such
an
agre
emen
t her
e br
ough
t him
a s
igni
fican
t ben
efit,
and
its
term
s pr
eclu
de h
is o
bstru
ctio
n-
of-ju
stic
e co
llate
ral a
ttack
.44
WH
EREF
OR
E, f
or th
e ab
ove-
stat
ed r
easo
ns, t
he U
nite
d St
ates
res
pect
fully
sub
mits
that
Mov
ant M
edin
a’s
and
Mov
ant C
ampa
’s m
otio
ns to
vac
ate,
set
asi
de o
r cor
rect
thei
rsen
tenc
esin
Cas
e N
o. 9
8-72
1-C
r-LE
NA
RD
(s)(
s), p
ursu
ant t
o 28
U.S
.C. §
2255
, sho
uld
be d
enie
d.
Res
pect
fully
subm
itted
,
WIF
RED
O A
. FER
RER
UN
ITED
STA
TES
ATT
OR
NEY
By:
/s/
Car
olin
e H
eck
Mill
er
CA
RO
LIN
E H
ECK
MIL
LER
ASS
ISTA
NT
U.S
. ATT
OR
NEY
Flor
ida
Bar
Num
ber 0
3223
6999
N.E
. 4TH
Stre
etM
iam
i, Fl
orid
a 33
132
(305
) 961
-943
2(3
05) 5
30-6
168
(fax
)ca
rolin
e.m
iller
@us
doj.g
ov
44M
ovan
t C
ampa
als
o w
as r
esen
tenc
ed,
see
DE/
cr 1
776,
but
did
not
ent
er i
nto
a se
nten
cing
ag
reem
ent.
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 60
of 6
1
61
CE
RT
IFIC
AT
E O
F SE
RV
ICE
I HER
EBY
CER
TIFY
that
on
Dec
embe
r 6, 2
011,
I el
ectro
nica
lly fi
led
the
fore
goin
g
docu
men
t with
the
Cle
rk o
f the
Cou
rt us
ing
CM
/EC
F, fo
r upl
oadi
ng a
nd se
rvic
e by
ele
ctro
nic
notic
e to
cou
nsel
and
par
ties a
utho
rized
to re
ceiv
e el
ectro
nica
lly N
otic
es o
f Ele
ctro
nic
Filin
g.
/s/
Car
olin
e H
eck
Mill
er
Car
olin
e H
eck
Mill
erA
ssis
tant
U.S
. Atto
rney
Cas
e 1:
11-c
v-23
376-
JAL
Doc
umen
t 9
Ent
ered
on
FLS
D D
ocke
t 12/
06/2
011
Pag
e 61
of 6
1
![UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF … · [1] united states district court southern district of new york -----united states of america,](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5be34f9909d3f2f02d8cb731/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-1-united-states-district.jpg)
