United States v. Antoine Harris ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207 Doc: 55 Filed: 08/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTOINE DION HARRIS, a/k/a Fattwan,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00065-RBS-RJK-
1)
Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: August 22, 2023
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Andrew M. Stewart, DENNIS, STEWART & KRISCHER PLLC, Arlington,
Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
Peter G. Osyf, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, Kristen S.
Taylor, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207 Doc: 55 Filed: 08/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Dion Harris appeals his convictions and 121-month sentence for Hobbs Act
robbery of a liquor store, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and for brandishing a firearm
during the robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Harris challenges his convictions
on two grounds: the district court abused its discretion by providing the jury with
transcripts of trial testimony during deliberations, and the district court erred by denying
his motion for a new trial based on an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963). We affirm.
Harris contends that the district court abused its discretion by providing to the jury
transcripts of witnesses’ trial testimony after the jury requested them. “We review a district
court’s decision to respond to a jury’s question, and the form of that response, for an abuse
of discretion.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 244 (4th Cir. 2007). “An error
requires reversal only if it is prejudicial in the context of the record as a whole.” Id.Providing testimony transcripts to the jury is disfavored because the jury might place undue
emphasis on the testimony. United States v. Rodgers, 109 F.3d 1138, 1143-44 (6th Cir.
1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties’ agreements and the
record on appeal, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. The district
court gave the jury a transcript of all testimony, eliminating the danger that the jury would
unduly emphasize a particular portion of the testimony. Further, the court instructed the
jurors to rely on their perceptions of the testimony in real-time during trial even though
they were given transcripts. See id. at 1145.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207 Doc: 55 Filed: 08/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
Harris also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial
under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 based on an alleged Brady violation. Harris was charged with
robbing a liquor store. Once he became a suspect, his friend, who was also a confidential
informant, recognized the clothing worn by the suspect identified on the news as identical
to the clothing the friend saw Harris wearing on the day of the robbery. After Harris was
detained for the robbery, Harris’ brother shot the friend. During the investigation of the
shooting, the friend misidentified two men seen with Harris’ brother before the shooting
several blocks away at a convenience store. One of the misidentifications was confirmed
to be wrong, and the other was only believed to be incorrect. Harris alleges the
Government’s failure to disclose these two misidentifications by the friend, who testified
for the Government in Harris’ case, violated Brady.
We review the denial of Harris’ motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Parker, 790 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2015). “It is an abuse of discretion
for the district court to commit a legal error—such as improperly determining whether
there was a Brady violation—and that underlying legal determination is reviewed de novo.”
United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 338 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
To demonstrate a Brady violation, the proponent must show that the
undisclosed evidence was (1) favorable to him either because it is
exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) material to the defense, i.e.,
prejudice must have ensued; and (3) that the prosecution had materials and
failed to disclose them.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4207 Doc: 55 Filed: 08/22/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
United States v. Taylor, 942 F.3d 205, 225 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A finding of materiality requires a reasonable probability that the evidence would
have produced a different result. Parker, 790 F.3d at 558.
Our review shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Harris’ motion for a new trial because the court properly found no Brady violation
occurred. The undisclosed evidence Harris identifies is weak impeachment evidence,
particularly because the friend knew Harris and spent time with him on the day of the
robbery. Further, the friend’s testimony was not the only evidence linking Harris to the
robbery; the liquor store manager on duty during the robbery identified Harris as the
perpetrator in a photo array and at trial. The jury also viewed video surveillance footage
of the robbery that corroborated the store manager’s testimony. Because Harris did not
show a reasonable probability of a different outcome if he had been provided the
undisclosed misidentification evidence, he failed to establish a Brady violation.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4