As a legal matter, the case does not contain anything new.
First, the Court rejected the defendant's sufficiency claim.
Second, the Court approved the district court's remedies for the government's late disclosures. It explained, "[d]istrict courts have discretion in shaping the remedies for Brady and Giglio violations."
The district court, among other remedies, instructed the jury:
Under the United States Constitution, in order for the defendant to receive a fair trial, the Government must inform the Defense of any information known to the Government that tends to suggest the defendant might not have committed the crimes or crime charged . . . and any information that casts doubt on the credibility of the Government’s own evidence. In this case, the Government violated those important Constitutional principles upon which the fair administration of our system of justice depends on multiple occasions. In evaluating the merits of this case, you can decide what weight, if any, to give to the Government’s violations of these Constitutional principles. The Government’s actions standing alone or in combination with other facts presented in this case, may create a reasonable doubt in your mind about the defendant’s guilt.
Finally, that the late disclosures resulted in dismissal of charges against other defendants was not determinative. On the facts, the defendants were differently situated.
