United States v. Hunter, 32 F.4th 22

Background

Paul Calder LeRoux ran a large transnational criminal enterprise; after his 2012 arrest he cooperated with authorities and testified at trial.
Defendants Stillwell, Samia, and Hunter were tried and convicted on counts including conspiracy and substantive murder-for-hire (18 U.S.C. § 956(a), § 1958), and money‑laundering conspiracies.
During the appeal, the NDDS obtained an ex parte sealed protective order that kept certain classified materials from SDNY prosecutors and defense counsel; the Second Circuit vacated that order and ordered disclosure.
On remand the defendants moved for a new trial under Rule 33, arguing Brady violations based on the newly disclosed materials (chiefly impeachment/"management and manipulation" material about LeRoux and a communication potentially about disposing a weapon).
The District Court held a classified hearing and denied the Rule 33 motions; the Second Circuit affirms, holding the withheld materials were not "material" under Brady because defendants were not prejudiced (no reasonable probability of a different verdict).
The panel expressed skepticism that NDDS/DEA‑SPS could hide Brady material by seeking ex parte protection from local prosecutors, but declined to resolve whether the materials were legally "suppressed" because lack of materiality was dispositive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the classified materials were "suppressed" for Brady purposes	Defendants: NDDS/DEA‑SPS withheld favorable material from SDNY prosecutors and defense; that nondisclosure is Brady suppression	Government: Materials were not known to the SDNY prosecution team (DEA‑SPS distinct from DEA‑BIU), so Brady's disclosure duty was not triggered	Court declined to decide suppression; expressed skepticism of Government's position but found resolution unnecessary because materials were not material
Whether the withheld materials were "material" (prejudicial) under Brady and warranted a Rule 33 new trial	Defendants: Materials would impeach LeRoux (management/manipulation evidence and a possible gun‑disposal communication), undermining jurisdictional elements and LeRoux's recantation testimony	Government: Impeachment would be cumulative; LeRoux was already heavily impeached and there was substantial independent evidence of U.S. conduct establishing jurisdiction	Held: Not material—no reasonable probability of a different outcome; Rule 33 denial affirmed
Whether Kyles duty extends to NDDS / DEA‑SPS here (i.e., are they part of the prosecution team)	Defendants: DEA‑SPS/NDDS are sufficiently connected to SDNY/DEA‑BIU that their knowledge should be imputed	Government: DEA‑SPS and NDDS were separate and did not share information with SDNY prosecution team	Court: Question left open; signaled concern that an agency that seeks ex parte nondisclosure to a court cannot simply immunize potentially material evidence from Brady scrutiny
Whether cumulative impeachment of a witness already discredited requires a new trial	Defendants: Additional impeachment would further undermine LeRoux's credibility and the verdict	Government: Trial record already contained extensive impeachment and corroborating evidence; additional impeachment would be cumulative	Held: Impeachment would have been cumulative; no new trial required

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose favorable evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor must learn favorable evidence known to others acting on government's behalf)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (three-part Brady test: favorable, suppressed, material)
United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.) (no Brady violation where prosecution team lacked knowledge of reports)
United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir.) (undisclosed evidence may be cumulative and hence not material)
United States v. Madori, 419 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.) (appellate de novo review of materiality, defer to district court factual findings)