United States v. McDowell

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided August 12, 1994·No. 93-2084·Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion


August 12, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 93-2084

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

BILLY RAY MCDOWELL, JR.,

Defendant, Appellant.

__________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

___________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

___________________

Billy Ray McDowell, Jr. on brief pro se.
_______________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-
______________ _________________
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Ernesto Hernandez-Milan,
________ _______________________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

__________________

__________________

Per Curiam. Billy Ray McDowell, Jr. was convicted of
__________

three counts of drug offenses. We affirmed that conviction

on appeal. United States v. McDowell, 918 F.2d 1004 (1st
_____________ ________

Cir. 1990); see also United States v. McDowell, 957 F.2d 36
________ _____________ ________

(1st Cir. 1992) (upholding resentencing after remand).

Thereafter, in December 1992, McDowell filed a motion for a

new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which

he claimed was Brady evidence1 unlawfully retained in the
_____

hands of the prosecution. This allegedly newly discovered

evidence consisted of (1) tape recordings of two

conversations which occurred on February 1, 1988 between

McDowell and Agent Francisco Sarra, who posed as Franklin

Browne, a co-defendant, at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport2

and (2) McDowell's telephone bills for January and February

1988. The district court denied that motion and McDowell has

appealed. We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in

the district court's opinion and order. United States v.
______________

McDowell, 830 F. Supp. 90 (D.P.R. 1993). We add only the
________

following comments.

It is clear that none of the evidence now relied on is

newly discovered. That is obviously true for McDowell's own

____________________

1. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
___ _____ ________

2. One was a telephone conversation with Agent Sarra
pretending to have just arrived at the airport. The second
conversation was recorded by a body wire worn by Sarra when
he met McDowell at the airport.

-2-

telephone bills. Moreover, McDowell's claim that the

prosecution is responsible for producing McDowell's own

telephone bills is not only inaccurate, it is illogical.3

The tape recordings of February 1, 1988 also were not newly

discovered. McDowell, himself, testified at his resentencing

hearing that, immediately after he was arrested, an agent

played him a tape of his conversation with Agent Sarra. Tr.

4/4/91 at 24. He, therefore, knew of that tape's existence

prior to trial. And, both the recordings - that of the

telephone conversation and the recording from Sarra's body

wire - were referred to at trial by Agent Sarra. Tr. 6/27/88

at 565; 567. Even if the government had failed to produce

these tapes prior to trial - a concession which it does not

make - McDowell knew about both recordings, at the latest,

mid-trial, yet did not request copies, complain about any

____________________

3. McDowell claims that, in support of his new trial motion,
he submitted the relevant telephone bills for both his
residence and his mobile telephones. And, he argues that the
district court misunderstood the collect call to Fort Worth,
Texas to which he referred. He says that the relevant call
was the collect call to Fort Worth made by co-defendant
Browne after co-defendant Darrin Taylor was arrested but
_____
before Browne, himself, was arrested. He contends that no
______
charge which could represent that collect call appears on
those bills. Even properly understood, McDowell's claim
cannot evade the fatal blow that his own telephone bills
cannot be newly discovered. In any event, whether Browne did
or did not make a prearrest collect call to McDowell does not
significantly detract from the quantum of evidence supporting
McDowell's conviction.

-3-

late disclosure, or seek a continuance of trial.4 Brady
_____

claims, at least typically, involve "the discovery, after
_____

trial of information which had been known to the prosecution
_____

but unknown to the defense." United States v. Agurs, 427
_____________ _____

U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (emphasis added).

In any event, there is scant, if any, exculpation in the

February 1 recordings.5 McDowell claims that the recorded

telephone conversation is exculpatory because it shows that

the $4,000 amount was suggested by Sarra. Even assuming this

is exculpatory, that is exactly what Sarra testified to at

trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. McDowell, (1st Cir. 1994).

United States v. McDowell (United States v. McDowell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (Supreme Court, 1985)
United States v. Billy Ray McDowell Jr.
918 F.2d 1004 (First Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Bill Ray McDowell
957 F.2d 36 (First Circuit, 1992)
United States v. McDowell
830 F. Supp. 90 (D. Puerto Rico, 1993)