USA v. JERNIGAN
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. JERNIGAN, No. 05-10086, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, David R. Thompson, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.
THOMPSON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Defendant Rachel Alaffa Jernigan appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial. A jury convicted Jernigan on March 23, 2001, of having robbed a bank on September 20, 2000. After her conviction, Jernigan learned that someone with similar physical characteristics had robbed nearby banks in November of 2000 and December of 2001. Based on this information, Jernigan filed a motion for a new trial in which she asserted that (1) the government violated her due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 . . .
B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority’s holding regarding Rule 33 but respectfully dissent from its ruling under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). I Jernigan was initially charged with three robberies — a September 20, 2000 robbery at 15 East Guadalupe in Gilbert; an October 11, 2000 robbery at 906 East Baseline Road in Tempe; and an October 25, 2000 robbery at 2298 North Alma School in Chandler. After Jernigan was placed into custody, two more banks were robbed in close proximity to the 15 East Guadalupe branch, by a person matching Jernigan’s physical description — a short, Hispanic woman with acne. Those robberies took place on November 28, 2000 and November 30, 2000. I find it highly unlikely that in a case like this, which turns exclusively and entirely upon eyewitness testimony, the jury would have convicted Jernigan had it known that robberies at. . .