## Facts

- Kevin Hall was prosecuted in the District of Maine for a marijuana distribution operation and related financial and tax crimes.
- A jury convicted Hall of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, money laundering, and tax evasion.
- The government relied in part on testimony from cooperating witness John Redihan, who testified pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Before trial, the government disclosed several of Redihan’s prior convictions, which Redihan admitted during testimony.
- After trial, additional details emerged about Redihan’s Rhode Island convictions, including additional marijuana-related offenses beyond what had been disclosed before trial.
- The jury made criminal forfeiture findings, and the district court entered an in personam money judgment exceeding $500,000 representing drug proceeds and ordered forfeiture of specific assets, authorizing substitute assets.
- Hall received a 151-month sentence under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.

## Issues

1. Whether the failure to disclose additional impeachment details about Redihan’s Rhode Island convictions violated Brady/Giglio and required a new trial.
2. Whether criminal forfeiture statutes authorized an in personam money judgment for the value of criminal proceeds no longer possessed and permitted resort to substitute assets.
3. Whether a sentence imposed under a mandatory Guidelines regime required remand after Booker made the Guidelines advisory.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed Hall’s convictions, finding no reversible Brady/Giglio violation.
- The court affirmed the forfeiture orders, including the in personam money judgment and the use of substitute assets to satisfy forfeiture.
- The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of Booker.

## Legal Principles

- Suppressed impeachment evidence warrants relief only if it is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have produced a different verdict.
- Impeachment evidence that is largely cumulative of other impeachment presented at trial is less likely to be material, particularly where the remaining evidence of guilt is strong.
- Criminal forfeiture is an in personam sanction against the defendant and may include a personal money judgment equal to the amount of criminal proceeds, even if the defendant no longer possesses the specific proceeds.
- When directly forfeitable property is unavailable, forfeiture statutes may permit forfeiture of substitute assets to satisfy the forfeiture obligation.
- Sentences imposed under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines require reconsideration under the advisory regime established by Booker.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld Hall’s convictions and forfeiture, holding that any nondisclosure about a cooperating witness’s additional convictions was not materially prejudicial and that criminal forfeiture may include an in personam money judgment satisfied through substitute assets, but it remanded for resentencing under Booker.


United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006)