Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In early 2023, the Metro Narcotics DEA Task Force in Northeast Louisiana used confidential informant Jerome White to conduct controlled methamphetamine purchases from James Ard, who was allegedly selling drugs from his Monroe home. Officers searched White before each buy, equipped him with surveillance gear, and received the purchased drugs upon his return. During a February 27, 2023 buy, White entered Ard’s house and, according to White’s testimony, purchased methamphetamine directly from Derrick Long, who was present. A video recording captured Long’s face at the scene.
A grand jury charged Long and several codefendants with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and with distribution of methamphetamine. All codefendants pleaded guilty and two — Ard and Brandon Wright — agreed to testify against Long. At trial in November 2024, the Government presented five witnesses, wiretap audio recordings, and video from the February 27 buy. White’s credibility was challenged at trial through his extensive criminal history, his status as a paid informant, and the fact that he was arrested and fired for stealing money and drugs during a later controlled purchase. Long presented no defense. The jury convicted him on both counts.
After trial, the Government disclosed that White had provided false testimony in a separate federal case, United States v. Manning, where he falsely claimed to have conducted two controlled purchases with the defendant on dates when that defendant was abroad on a cruise. Long moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing the suppressed Manning evidence constituted newly discovered evidence and a Brady violation. The district court denied the motion, sentenced Long to two concurrent 235-month terms plus five years of supervised release, and Long appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Long failed to establish a Brady violation because the Manning evidence was not material in the context of the entire record. Reviewing for plain error — because Long raised the Brady claim for the first time on appeal — the court acknowledged that the Manning evidence was not merely cumulative of the impeachment evidence presented at trial. Unlike Long’s prior convictions and theft from the Government, evidence that White fabricated drug transactions against a defendant in another case would have exposed a distinct character for untruthfulness with a factual pattern closely resembling Long’s own case. The Government also conceded at oral argument that the Manning evidence should have been disclosed.
Nevertheless, the court concluded the evidence was immaterial because White’s testimony was strongly corroborated by independent evidence. Ard testified that Long was routinely at his house and that he directed White there on February 27. Detective Cowan and Agent Laiche confirmed that White was given buy money, returned with methamphetamine, and that Long’s presence at the house that day was undisputed. Wiretap recordings captured Long discussing drug transactions with Ard and others in June 2023, corroborating his role in the conspiracy. Wright further testified that Long was present at Ard’s house during a drug deal in June 2023.
The court emphasized that Long’s presence at the scene on February 27 was not in dispute, distinguishing the Manning situation where the defendant had an alibi placing him out of the country. Given the breadth of corroborating evidence and the district court’s jury instruction to weigh paid-informant testimony with great caution, there was no reasonable probability that disclosure of the Manning evidence would have produced a different outcome. The court therefore found no Brady violation and no plain error in the denial of Long’s new trial motion.
Key Takeaways
- Suppressed impeachment evidence is not material under Brady when the witness’s testimony is strongly corroborated by independent evidence — even if the undisclosed evidence is not merely cumulative of impeachment already presented at trial.
- Evidence that an informant fabricated controlled purchases in a separate case constitutes a distinct form of impeachment (character for untruthfulness) that is not automatically cumulative of evidence showing bias or a history of non-dishonesty crimes.
- A defendant who fails to raise a Brady claim in the district court faces the demanding plain-error standard on appeal, requiring a clear and obvious error that affects substantial rights.
- An undisputed alibi-like fact — here, that the defendant was present at the scene — can distinguish a prior false-testimony incident and reduce the weight of suppressed impeachment evidence in the materiality analysis.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the limits of Brady materiality when the Government’s case rests on multiple, mutually reinforcing evidence streams. Even where suppressed impeachment evidence is qualitatively different from what was presented at trial — and even where the Government concedes it should have been disclosed — courts will not find a constitutional violation if the undisclosed evidence could not reasonably have altered the verdict in light of the full record. Defense practitioners should note that obtaining acquittal-worthy impeachment relief under Brady requires both a non-cumulative showing and an absence of strong corroboration, a dual burden that is difficult to meet in multi-witness, multi-exhibit cases.
The case also underscores the risks of failing to preserve issues at the trial level. By raising the Brady claim for the first time on appeal, Long was confined to plain-error review — a significantly higher bar than the de novo standard that would have applied had the claim been raised below. Counsel litigating cases involving confidential informants should investigate and assert potential Brady claims at the earliest opportunity to preserve the most favorable standard of review.