Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the defendant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, leading to a 70-month sentence with an enhancement for obstruction of justice due to perjury. The defendant appealed the conviction and sentence, challenging the credibility of the principal witness and claiming erroneous enhancement. The court upheld the enhancement, deferring to the trial judge's credibility assessments. Additionally, the defendant argued against the admission of a witness's testimony, citing the government's failure to disclose it per local discovery rules, but the court found any potential error harmless as there was no demonstrated prejudice. The defendant further contended reversible error in the non-disclosure of informant information, but the court determined the government met its Brady obligations, as the undisclosed information was immaterial. An entrapment defense was also raised, alleging error in jury instructions; however, the court deemed any error harmless due to the defendant’s own admissions. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that constitutional claims regarding discovery and confrontation were unfounded given the evidence presented. The case was resolved without oral argument, and the findings were not published for citation except under specific rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Undisclosed Witness Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing testimony from a witness despite the government's failure to disclose her projected testimony, as no prejudice was shown.
Reasoning: Goller could not demonstrate prejudice, as he would not have developed rebuttal evidence even with earlier access to the witness's testimony.
Confrontation Clause and Immaterial Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the confrontation argument as it relied on obtaining immaterial evidence that could have been addressed during trial questioning.
Reasoning: His confrontation argument fails because it relies on the acquisition of immaterial evidence that could have been addressed during trial questioning.
Disclosure of Informant Information under Bradysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the government fulfilled its Brady obligations, as the undisclosed information did not meet the materiality standard.
Reasoning: The information Goller sought does not meet the materiality standard established by Brady, as there is no reasonable probability that it would have influenced the outcome of his trial.
Entrapment Defense and Jury Instructionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found any error in jury instructions on entrapment to be harmless, given the defendant's own testimony negated the entrapment claim.
Reasoning: However, any instructional error was deemed harmless, as Goller's own testimony about distributing cocaine before meeting the informant negated his claim of entrapment.
Obstruction of Justice Enhancement under Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjured testimony, affirming the judge's credibility assessments.
Reasoning: A jury convicted Gregory Paul Goller...resulting in a 70-month sentence that included a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice due to perjured testimony.