United States v. Bradley, 105 F.4th 26

Dennis A. Bradley, Jr. and Jessica Martinez were charged with wire fraud and related crimes arising from Bradley’s 2018 Connecticut state senate campaign.
The government alleged they made false statements to obtain state campaign grants and failed to report a $7,000 campaign-related event and other contributions.
As part of the investigation, videographers for the campaign produced a 13-minute video; on the eve of trial, a previously undisclosed 28-minute video was found and produced to the defense.
The district court precluded the government from using this 28-minute video at trial, citing a violation of discovery rules (Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)) and a local Standing Order on Discovery.
The government appealed the preclusion order, arguing it had no obligation to turn over evidence not in its possession, custody, or control before it actually obtained it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate Jurisdiction	District court's order precluding evidence was appealable under 18 U.S.C. § 3731	The order was tentative, not final or appealable	Court held the order was sufficiently definite and appealable
Rule 16(a)(1)(E) Violation	Government did not have the 28-minute video in its possession, custody, or control before May 24 and thus had no duty to disclose earlier	Government knew or should have known of the video's existence and had a duty to obtain and produce it earlier	No Rule 16(a)(1)(E) violation; obligation applies only to items in government possession, custody, or control
Standing Order Violation	Standing Order does not create a broader duty than Rule 16; only applies to items in government's possession or control	Standing Order imposes a due diligence obligation to seek out and produce relevant, known (or knowable) evidence	No Standing Order violation; court interpreted provision narrowly, no due diligence obligation exists
District Court Factfinding Post-Appeal	District court's additional factfinding post-appeal was improper	Supplemental factfinding was proper	Court did not resolve this issue, stating no violation would be found even accepting all facts as true

United States v. Hoskins, 902 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2018) (interprets circumstances for government’s appeals in criminal matters)
United States v. Horwitz, 622 F.2d 1101 (2d Cir. 1980) (district court's oral order can be sufficiently definite for appeal under § 3731)
United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 1994) (Rule 16 only requires production of evidence in government’s possession or control, not what it merely suspects exists)
United States v. Ransom, 866 F.2d 574 (2d Cir. 1989) (after notice of appeal, district court’s power generally limited to clerical corrections or aiding the appeal)
United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1983) (district court errs by making factual findings after divestment of jurisdiction by appeal)