Background
In early 2023, members of the Metro Narcotics DEA Task Force in Northeast Louisiana used a confidential informant, Jerome White, to conduct controlled methamphetamine purchases from James Ard, who was allegedly running drug sales out of his Monroe home. A grand jury later charged Derrick Long and several codefendants with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and with distribution on February 27, 2023. All codefendants pleaded guilty; Ard and Brandon Wright agreed to testify against Long. After a two-day trial in November 2024, the jury convicted Long on both counts based on testimony from White, Ard, Detective Anthony Cowan, DEA Special Agent Andrew Laiche, and Wright, as well as wiretap recordings and video surveillance footage showing Long at Ard’s house on the day of the controlled purchase.
After trial, the Government disclosed that White had provided false testimony in a separate federal drug case, United States v. Manning, where White fabricated two controlled purchases on dates when the defendant was actually out of the country on a cruise. Long filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing the Manning evidence was newly discovered material impeachment evidence that Brady v. Maryland required the Government to disclose. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that despite the withheld evidence, the verdict was independently supported by substantial corroborating proof. The court sentenced Long to two concurrent terms of 235 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.
On appeal, Long argued the Government’s failure to disclose the Manning false-testimony evidence before trial constituted a Brady violation requiring a new trial. Because Long raised the Brady claim for the first time on appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed only for plain error.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Manning evidence was not material under Brady and therefore no Brady violation occurred. The court acknowledged that the Manning evidence was not merely cumulative of the impeachment evidence presented at trial — White’s prior false testimony implicating a defendant in drug deals he could not have made was qualitatively distinct from evidence of White’s criminal history, paid-informant status, and theft during a controlled buy, because it went to White’s character for untruthfulness and his propensity to falsely implicate defendants. However, the court found that White’s testimony was strongly corroborated by independent evidence sufficient to prevent the Manning disclosure from undermining confidence in the verdict.
That corroborating evidence included: surveillance video placing Long at Ard’s house on February 27, 2023 (a fact the parties did not dispute); Ard’s testimony that Long was always at his house and that White was directed there on that date; Detective Cowan’s and Agent Laiche’s testimony confirming White returned with methamphetamine; wiretap recordings of Long, Ard, and others discussing drug transactions in June 2023; and Wright’s testimony placing Long at Ard’s house during a separate drug deal. The court further noted that the trial judge had instructed the jury to scrutinize paid-informant testimony with great care, diminishing the marginal impact of any additional impeachment.
Because the Manning evidence did not create a reasonable probability that disclosure would have produced a different outcome, the court held there was no Brady violation and no plain error in the district court’s 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 — the question is whether the withheld evidence puts the whole case in a different light, not merely whether it would have provided an additional basis to impeach.
- Evidence of prior false testimony by a government informant is not automatically cumulative of other impeachment evidence (criminal history, paid-informant status) because it implicates a distinct form of impeachment — character for untruthfulness — especially when the prior fabrication closely mirrors what could have occurred in the current case.
- A defendant who fails to raise a Brady claim at the district court level faces the demanding plain-error standard on appeal, requiring a clear or obvious error that affects substantial rights and seriously undermines the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
- The Government conceded at oral argument that the Manning evidence should have been disclosed, narrowing the appellate dispute solely to materiality.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the high bar defendants face when asserting Brady violations based on undisclosed informant-credibility evidence, particularly where the trial record contains substantial independent corroboration of the informant’s account. Even where suppressed evidence is qualitatively distinct — here, proof that the same informant had fabricated controlled-purchase testimony in another case — courts will assess its materiality against the full evidentiary record rather than in isolation. Defense practitioners should note that failing to raise a Brady claim in the district court dramatically narrows appellate review.
The case also serves as a reminder that the Government’s disclosure obligations extend to impeachment evidence bearing on a key witness’s character for untruthfulness, not merely to exculpatory evidence going directly to guilt. The Government here acknowledged it should have disclosed the Manning evidence — suggesting that post-trial disclosure of informant misconduct in other cases can generate appealable Brady issues even when, as here, the materiality threshold is ultimately not met.