United States v. Kenneth Bell, 870 F.3d 622

Defendants Antonio Walter and Kenneth Bell were convicted after a jury trial for a heroin-distribution conspiracy (charged for conduct through Nov. 2010); convictions relied entirely on accomplice testimony, no direct physical evidence linking them to the conspiracy.
Key government witness Edmund Forrest testified under a plea deal and portrayed himself as having given up dealing while cooperating; his detailed testimony corroborated other jailhouse witnesses.
DuShae Nesbitt, a government witness who later testified, told FBI Agent Helen Dunn during a hallway conversation (while trial was ongoing) that Forrest was still "at the table" selling drugs for a supplier called "KMART." The prosecution learned of this but did not disclose it to defense counsel until months after the verdict.
The government also elicited testimony from an officer that Operation Blue Knight included recorded controlled buys by Bell; defense argued that admission of that prior-act evidence violated Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Defendants moved for a new trial alleging (1) Brady violation for nondisclosure of Nesbitt’s hallway statements (impeachment evidence) and (2) erroneous admission under Rule 404(b) of evidence of Bell’s prior controlled sales; the district court denied relief and defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of testimony about Bell’s prior controlled buys violated Rule 404(b)	Bell: prior-sale testimony was offered only to show propensity to deal drugs, not a non-propensity purpose	Gov: testimony rebutted Bell’s misleading implication that he was never caught; admissible to correct the record	Court: admission was questionable under Gomez; limiting instruction incomplete, but harmlessness not finally resolved because Brady error required new trial
Whether the government violated Brady by not disclosing Nesbitt’s hallway statements promptly	Bell/Walter: Nesbitt’s statements were favorable impeachment evidence, suppressed, and material because case turned on witness credibility	Gov: defendants already knew or had cues about Forrest’s ongoing conduct; evidence not material given other impeachment of Forrest and overall record	Court: Brady violated — statements were favorable, suppressed, and material (reasonable probability of different outcome); convictions vacated and remanded for new trial

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materiality: reasonable probability result would differ)
United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (framework for distinguishing propensity vs. non-propensity use of other-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Walker, 746 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for Brady elements and review)
United States v. Morales, 746 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2014) (Brady nondisclosure excused when defense already possessed evidence)
Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (timeliness rules for post-verdict motions are not jurisdictional)
United States v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 239 (7th Cir. 1995) (impeachment showing witness lied about reform could undermine credibility and testimony)
United States v. Curtis, 781 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2015) (Rule 404(b) admissibility review is abuse-of-discretion)
United States v. Dvorkin, 799 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2015) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary mistakes)