## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad (“Sadr”) with offenses tied to alleged evasion of U.S. sanctions on Iran through financial transactions using front entities and U.S. financial institutions.
- After a two-week jury trial in March 2020, the jury returned guilty verdicts on five counts.
- Post-trial, Sadr moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial, sought vacatur of the verdict, and requested dismissal of the indictment, arguing the Government failed to meet disclosure obligations under Brady, Giglio, Rule 16, and court orders.
- A key exhibit (GX 411), later conceded by the Government to have exculpatory value, undermined the Government’s core trial narrative and had substantive and impeachment value for the defense.
- The Government disclosed GX 411 only shortly before first using it at trial, did not flag it as exculpatory, and presented it as part of a larger production in a manner the court found obscured its importance.
- The court found misleading or incomplete representations by prosecutors about when and how GX 411 was identified and about the review and handling of search-warrant returns.
- The court identified broader discovery-management problems, including delayed and incomplete productions, failure to track productions, and internal confusion about responsibility for Brady review.
- The Government ultimately conceded noncompliance with disclosure obligations, agreed a new trial should be granted and the verdict vacated, and did not oppose dismissal with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether the Government’s late, misleading, and incomplete disclosure of favorable and impeachment evidence—particularly GX 411—violated Brady, Giglio, Rule 16, and court orders, thereby undermining trial fairness.
2. What remedy was warranted under Rule 33 and the court’s supervisory authority, including vacatur of the verdict and dismissal of the indictment with prejudice.
3. Whether the record supported findings of intentional misconduct by individual prosecutors and what oversight measures were appropriate.

## Decision

- The court granted Sadr’s Rule 33 motion, vacated the guilty verdict, and ordered a new trial.
- In light of the Government’s position and the prejudice to the defense, the court dismissed the indictment with prejudice.
- The court found serious disclosure and candor failures but did not find sufficient support on the record for conclusions that individual prosecutors intentionally withheld evidence or intentionally misled the court.
- The court referred the matter to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility for further review of the prosecution’s conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires the Government to disclose favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment; impeachment material is included under Giglio.
- “Disclosure” must be timely and meaningfully usable; late production that prevents effective investigation or integration into trial strategy can violate Brady even if the defense eventually receives the material.
- Materiality turns on whether nondisclosure or delayed, misleading disclosure undermines confidence in the verdict, including when the suppressed evidence undercuts a central prosecution narrative.
- Under Rule 33, a court may grant a new trial when the interest of justice requires, including where cumulative disclosure violations compromise the fairness of the proceedings.
- Dismissal with prejudice may be warranted where severe prosecutorial failures and resulting prejudice make further proceedings unjust, particularly where the Government elects not to proceed with retrial.
- Lack of proven intent does not eliminate the seriousness of Brady and discovery violations or the court’s authority to impose strong remedies and seek institutional accountability.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the Government’s handling of exculpatory and impeachment evidence—especially the late, obscured disclosure of GX 411—combined with broader discovery failures and misleading representations, undermined confidence in the verdict; it vacated the convictions, granted a new trial, and dismissed the indictment with prejudice while referring the matter for internal Justice Department review.


United States v. Nejad, 487 F. Supp. 3d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)