Does the prosecution have a duty to disclose a government witness' pecuniary interest in the outcome of the trial?

Dennis claims that the prosecution's failure to disclose a government witness' pecuniary interest in the outcome of the trial denied him due process. We disagree. First, the interest at issue had no impeachment value. Any connection between the outcome of the trial and the success of the book is pure speculation. Thus the prosecution had no duty to disclose the information. Second, even assuming that the evidence had impeachment value, it must also be material. Bagley v. Lumpkin, 798 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir.1986). The witness's testimony was merely cumulative of other evidence directly implicating Dennis in rigging the slot machines. Accordingly, the interest was not material as it did not undermine the confidence in the outcome of the trial.

4. Prosecutor's Comments

Dennis contends the prosecutor in closing arguments improperly shifted the burden of proof. Assuming that the prosecutorial comments were improper, the misconduct must constitute plain error since Dennis failed to object to the comments at trial. See United States v. Berry, 627 F.2d 193, 199 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1113 (1981).

We find neither plain nor harmless error as the judge's immediate caution to

Page 792