United States v. Charles Schwarz, Thomas Wiese, and Thomas Bruder, Justin A. Volpe and Michael Bellomo
Docket: 00-1479
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; July 26, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Charles Schwarz, Thomas Wiese, and Thomas Bruder, who, along with Justin Volpe, were charged with civil rights violations stemming from the assault of Abner Louima on August 9, 1997, after his arrest in Brooklyn, New York. Louima, who was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car driven by Schwarz, testified that he was beaten during transport and later severely assaulted by police officers in a precinct bathroom, where Volpe admitted to abusing him. The defendants faced a twelve-count superseding indictment for conspiring to assault Louima and obstructing justice, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 371, and 1503. The case was split into two trials: one for the assault charges and another for the obstruction of justice charge. The appellants claimed the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. The court acknowledged the necessity of addressing this claim in its ruling.
Volpe pleaded guilty to six counts related to the assault of Louima, specifically during incidents in a police car and a stationhouse bathroom. A key issue in the first trial was whether Officer Schwarz had led Louima to the bathroom, as this could link him to the assault alongside Volpe. Schwarz denied involvement, claiming Louima fabricated the presence of two officers during the assault and asserting he was at the front desk when it occurred. The Government contended that Schwarz did lead Louima to the bathroom and presented two witnesses: Officer Mark Schofield, who did not see them pass the Arrest Room, and Officer Eric Turetzky, who testified that he saw Schwarz escort Louima past the Arrest Room to the bathroom.
The jury acquitted Schwarz, Wiese, and Bruder of assaulting Louima in the police car but convicted Schwarz of the assault in the bathroom, indicating they likely credited Turetzky's testimony. In a subsequent trial, another jury found Schwarz, Wiese, and Bruder guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice related to the grand jury investigation. The District Court sentenced Schwarz to 188 months in prison, 5 years of supervised release, and ordered restitution of $277,495 to Louima, while Wiese and Bruder received 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release each. Currently, Schwarz is serving his sentence, and Wiese and Bruder are free pending appeal.
On appeal, the defendants challenge their convictions, claiming the Government failed to comply with disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. They argue that the Government suppressed evidence that could have impeached Turetzky's testimony, which was crucial to the case against Schwarz and indirectly against the other defendants. The material in question includes tapes and transcripts from Internal Affairs Bureau hearings (GO-15 hearings), summaries held by federal prosecutors, and FBI reports of interviews related to those hearings.
Appellants in two trials sought to compel the production of exculpatory and impeachment materials under the Brady and Giglio standards, or alternatively requested an in camera inspection of such materials. The District Court denied these motions in both trials, referencing United States v. Volpe and United States v. Bruder. On appeal, the Court ordered the Government to provide sealed statements from the GO-15 hearings and FBI interview reports of witnesses from those hearings, along with a protective order for disclosure to the defendants. The appellants were directed to submit any supplemental briefs regarding their Brady/Giglio claims after reviewing the materials.
Subsequently, counsel for appellant Schwarz submitted an affidavit from Officer F, a retired police sergeant, claiming that Turetzky expressed uncertainty about which officer—either Officer Wiese or Officer Schwarz—escorted Louima to the bathroom, as he only saw them from the rear. Officer F recounted multiple discussions with Turetzky, who consistently stated he could not identify the officer. Officer F reported this to a police captain, who advised against writing a report, and later discussed it with a lieutenant, but stated that no investigative follow-up occurred. The question before the Court is whether the Government suppressed critical exculpatory and impeachment evidence that could undermine Turetzky's testimony, a significant point given his role as the key Government witness. The Government disputes the validity of Officer F's affidavit both factually and legally.
No position is taken on the issue of material evidence under Brady v. Maryland, which states that the government violates its duty if it suppresses evidence favorable to the accused. To qualify as "material," evidence need not guarantee acquittal; it suffices that the evidence could alter perceptions of the case and undermine confidence in the verdict. This includes evidence affecting a witness's credibility, which is crucial to determining guilt or innocence. Courts must consider the cumulative effect of all withheld material evidence when evaluating a Brady claim.
Newly presented materials, like an affidavit, may lead to further proceedings, including a potential Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on claims of Brady violations. The District Court is instructed to review the Brady/Giglio claim alongside any Rule 33 motion to promote judicial economy and avoid piecemeal litigation. It should allow record supplementation and clearly state the factual and legal basis for its findings.
The case is remanded to the District Court to consider these claims and make necessary determinations by September 24, 2001. Following this, the parties must submit supplemental briefs by October 5, 2001. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the claims at this stage. The mandate will be issued immediately.
Schwarz testified at the second trial that he searched the rear area of his police car following the attack on Louima, adhering to patrol guidelines. Volpe was sentenced to 30 years in prison, 5 years of supervised release, and approximately $281,000 in restitution after pleading guilty, a sentence affirmed on appeal. The retired police sergeant is referred to as Officer F to maintain confidentiality as per a sealed order. During the second trial, a statement from Wiese, who received prosecutorial immunity except for obstruction and perjury, was admitted. Wiese indicated he escorted Louima, while Volpe took him to the bathroom to "clean up" blood, where Wiese heard thumps but remained outside. Wiese later intervened after the assault. At both trials, Schwarz denied escorting Louima or participating in the assault, and Volpe corroborated Wiese's account. A statement by Wiese that Schwarz and Wiese resembled each other, if believed, could cast doubt on Louima’s identification of the second assailant. Lastly, under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant may request a new trial based on newly discovered evidence within three years of a verdict, but if an appeal is pending, the motion must be made upon remand.
