143503P.pdf   01/05/2016  United States  v.  Randall Robinson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3503
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. With respect to defendant's Brady challenge 
   based on the prosecutor's failure to disclose past misconduct by a police 
   officer, when the evidence at issue is misconduct by a government witness, 
   and that misconduct is unrelated to the investigation or prosecution of 
   defendant, is known only to the witness himself, and could not have been 
   discovered by the prosecutor through due diligence, the court is reluctant 
   to conclude that such evidence should be imputed to the prosecutor; here, 
   defendant failed to show the information was material, even if could be 
   used to impeach the officer, as other witnesses, not subject to such 
   impeachment, testified to the events which led to defendant's prosecution 
   and there is no reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted 
   had he been able to impeach the officer; since this conviction was not 
   obtained in violation of Brady, it could be used at defendant's trial for 
   making a false statement; the district court did not abuse its discretion 
   by denying defendant's recusal motion which was based on the trial judge's 
   hiring of one of defendant's former attorneys as a law clerk as the law 
   clerk only performs administrative functions for the trial judge (who is 
   Chief Judge of the district) and does not work on his criminal cases; 
   evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for making a 
   false statement to the FBI; false statement charge was not motivated by 
   prosecutorial vindictiveness; while the issue of whether defendant's 
   prosecution at a second trial was motivated by prosecutorial 
   vindictiveness would normally be analyzed under the de novo/clear error 
   standard, because defendant did not raise the issue prior to trial, the 
   issue is reviewed under the plain error standard;on the facts here, 
   defendant failed to raise a presumption of vindictiveness, and the 
   district court did not commit plain error by rejecting the claim. Judge 
   Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.