Carter

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the district court’s finding of a Brady violation. The information contained within the documents and photographs was crucial to the decision of whether to proceed with an insanity defense or an identity defense. Turning these materials over after the first day of trial, when the prosecution’s case-in-chief was almost complete, was prejudicial in light of the information’s importance to the defense strategy.

To claim double jeopardy as a bar to retrial, Carter must demonstrate that the “governmental conduct in question [was] intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial.” Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). That intent will be inferred from “objective facts and circumstances.” Id. at 675 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 . Carter asks that we draw that inference from the district court’s suppression of a large portion of the government’s expert testimony the day before trial. Because of the loss of this testimony, alleges Carter, the prosecution desired and obtained a continuance through the indirect method of revealing previously hidden discovery and provoking the defense into asking for a mistrial.

We find this…