## Facts

- Federal prosecutors tried Jeff Boyd and six others, alleged leaders or close associates of the El Rukns, for serious federal crimes connected to large-scale drug trafficking and violence.
- After a four-month jury trial in the Northern District of Illinois, the defendants were convicted; five received life sentences and two received fifty-year sentences.
- The government’s case relied heavily on six cooperating former gang leaders, including Harry Evans and Henry Harris, who testified under cooperation agreements.
- Post-trial, the defense learned information indicating that, during trial, cooperating witnesses used illegal drugs and received improper favors from prosecutors or their staffs.
- The defense also alleged that prosecutors knowingly allowed Evans and Harris to testify falsely about continuing drug use.
- The district court held extensive post-trial evidentiary hearings and found gross prosecutorial misconduct by the U.S. Attorney’s Office; the government did not materially contest the existence of misconduct on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether “outrageous governmental misconduct,” without a showing of prejudice to the verdict, is an independent basis to grant a new trial.
2. Whether the proven misconduct warranted a new trial under established prejudice-based doctrines (e.g., Brady nondisclosure or knowing use of perjury).

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held that a freestanding “outrageous governmental misconduct” doctrine is not available as an independent basis for a new trial in the circuit.
- The court ruled that prosecutorial misconduct is not reversible error by itself; it is actionable only if it results in legal error that prejudices the defendant.
- The court reversed the district court’s sweeping new-trial order to the extent it rested on an impermissible, punitive rationale untethered to prejudice, and limited relief to what could be supported under recognized standards requiring prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- The Seventh Circuit does not recognize “outrageous governmental misconduct” as an independent ground for overturning convictions or granting a new trial.
- Courts may not reverse convictions to punish prosecutors; misconduct supports relief only when it causes reversible error affecting substantial rights.
- Claims based on prosecutorial misconduct must be evaluated under established frameworks (including Brady/Giglio disclosure duties, Napue-type knowing use of false testimony, and harmless-error analysis), each requiring a showing of materiality or prejudice.

## Conclusion

Even where prosecutorial conduct is found grossly improper, a new trial is not warranted absent prejudice under recognized legal doctrines; generalized outrage at government behavior is not a standalone ground for relief in the Seventh Circuit.


United States v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 239 (7th Cir. 1995)