986 F.3d 196
2d Cir.2021Background
- Defendants Stillwell, Samia, and Hunter were convicted by a jury (April 18, 2018) of murder‑for‑hire and related offenses and sentenced (life). Appeals were filed.
- The DOJ Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS) had procured a sealed, ex parte protective order under CIPA §4 and Rule 16 that prevented both the local U.S. Attorney’s Office and defense counsel from seeing certain materials.
- The Second Circuit vacated that protective order, ordered disclosure first to the U.S. Attorney for SDNY and then to defense counsel consistent with Brady/Giglio, and required supplemental briefing; disclosure and briefing completed in late 2020.
- After receiving the disclosed material, Defendants raised for the first time on appeal Brady claims alleging the prosecution withheld exculpatory/impeaching information.
- The panel declined to resolve those Brady claims on direct appeal—finding no district‑court record to review and potential Rule 33 timeliness issues—and REMANDED for the District Court to consider the claims first on appropriate post‑trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court should resolve Brady claims raised for the first time on appeal. | Issues not preserved below; appellate review is discretionary and generally improper. | Defendants contend newly disclosed materials required resolution now. | Court declined to decide; remanded for District Court to consider claims in first instance. |
| Whether the prosecution violated Brady by withholding exculpatory/impeaching material. | NDDS had sought secrecy; disclosure was governed by CIPA and protective‑order rationale. | Withheld material was favorable and potentially material; suppression deprived fair trial. | Court expressed no view on merits; directed District Court to determine suppression and materiality on remand. |
| Whether a new‑trial motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 (newly discovered evidence) remains timely. | (Implied) Rule 33 time limits may bar relief if not timely filed. | Defendants argue they could not have moved earlier because materials were sealed and undisclosed. | Court noted Rule 33 three‑year limit (trial verdict April 18, 2018) and urged prompt District‑Court consideration given approaching deadline. |
| Whether ex parte sealed protective orders barring the U.S. Attorney and defense are permissible without clear justification. | NDDS sought and defended secrecy of materials. | Secrecy prevented prosecutor and defense from fulfilling disclosure obligations under Brady/Giglio. | Court vacated the protective order, ordered disclosure, and advised district courts to state clear reasons if maintaining such ex parte orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecution must disclose impeachment evidence affecting witness credibility)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard; prosecutor’s duty to learn favorable evidence)
- United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) (elements required to establish Brady violation)
- United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200 (2d Cir. 1995) (prosecution’s affirmative duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40 (3d Cir. 1976) (remanding newly raised Brady claims for district‑court resolution)
- United States v. Kirk Tang Yuk, 885 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2018) (discussed review of unpreserved Brady claims)
- United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994) (procedural directions for further appeals)