Skip to content
Name: United States v. Bond
Case #: 06-50628
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/20/2009

There was no Brady violation where the defendant could have subpoenaed the witness. The government did not violate Brady v. Maryland by not calling, after indicating that it would, a witness who testified in a related trial and whose testimony the defendant argued would have been favorable to him, where there was no concealment of information, no favorable material that the government failed to produce, and no selective disclosure; and where the government provided the defendant with the information needed to acquire all trial testimony and provided him with the essential factual data to determine whether the witness’ testimony might be helpful. Declining to extend Benn v. Lambert (9th Cir. 2002) 283 F.3d 1040, beyond cases in which the government has affirmatively misled the defendant by a selective disclosure of information, the court wrote that the defendant could have subpoenaed the witness on his own had he thought that the witness had anything exculpatory to say.