of drug transactions. Id. ; Gov't Ex. 22 at 19, 28. Prior to departing the country, Defendant accepted a briefcase filled with $ 250,000 in cash that was represented to be payment for her money laundering services. Tr. 3 at 144-45. Her crew also took possession of a number of suitcases that were represented to contain $ 5,000,000 in illegal proceeds. Tr. 3 at 146.
The participation of the flight crew in meetings to discuss the exportation of illegal money, and Defendant's statement that everyone knew what was going on, supports the conclusion that Defendant and her flight crew were members of the conspiracy and understood the purpose of the agreement -- to transport funds out of the United States in order to avoid taxes and promote drug trafficking. Defendant engaged in numerous overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, not the least of which was accepting payment for her services. The evidence suffices to establish the elements of a conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(a)(2)(A) and (h).
I conclude that the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support Defendant's convictions on Counts I and II of the indictment.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for a judgment of acquittal will be denied.
III. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
A. Standard of Review
A motion for a new trial may be granted if required in the interest of justice. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. See also United States v. Phifer, 400 F. Supp. 719, 722 (E.D. Pa. 1975), aff'd, 532 F.2d 748 (3d Cir. 1976). It is a remedy to be used sparingly, reserved for exceptional circumstances, where the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict or where failure to grant a new trial would result in a miscarriage of justice. See Phifer, 400 F. Supp. at 722 (citing United States v. Leach, 427 F.2d 1107, 1111 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 829, 91 S. Ct. 95, 27 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1970)). The decision to grant a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, although a new trial must be granted if there is a reasonable probability that error in the proceedings had a substantial influence on the jury's decision. See Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Bedford, 671 F.2d 758, 762 (3d Cir. 1982).
1. Brady Violation
Following trial, Defendant filed a motion for in camera review of certain Government files to determine whether the Government failed to turn over impeachment evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972). That motion was granted. My review of the materials turned over by the Government compels the conclusion that a Brady violation occurred, mandating a new trial.
A Brady violation occurs when: (1) the prosecution suppresses or withholds evidence; (2) which is favorable; and (3) material to the defense. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 970 (3d Cir. 1991). Impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence falls within the Brady rule. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154, 92 S. Ct. at 766; Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 972. Evidence covered by the Brady rule is "evidence favorable [and material] to the accused so that, if disclosed and used effectively, it may make the difference between conviction and acquittal." Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 972 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3380, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985)) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis original). A defendant is entitled to a new trial where there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 971 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S. Ct. at 3383). The good faith or bad faith of the Government is irrelevant to the analysis. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1197.
In the instant case, the Government's case rested to a large degree on the testimony of its informant witness Jerry Diez. The credibility of this key witness was crucial to the prosecution. At trial, Diez testified that he had assisted the Government in a number of previous cases. He indicated that the only financial compensation that he received from the Government was reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. Tr. 3 at 94-96. On redirect examination, the following exchange occurred.
Q. Just one more question, Mr. Diez. You were asked about your -- the work that you have performed for law enforcement over the years. Why do you do it?
A. Why do I do it?