What is the effect of prosecutorial misconduct in the context of discovery and discovery abuse?

It is true that some material was not promptly turned over to counsel for appellants. ³ We believe, however, that there are at least two reasons why such prosecutorial conduct does not warrant reversal. First, production of the evidence was delayed, not suppressed. ⁴ Appellants had several possible remedies at various times of which they chose not to avail themselves, such as requesting a continuance, recalling the witness for further examination, or introducing rebuttal evidence. Second, there had been no showing that the delay resulted in any prejudice, or even that the evidence was material to the issue of guilt. The trial judge carefully scrutinized the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct and discovery abuse. Indeed, he struck the testimony of one witness when the government inadvertently failed to produce one of the witness's reports. In United States v. Sperling, 726 F.2d 69, (2 Cir. 1984), we recently considered a case where a tape which contained impeaching evidence was not produced by the government until after the trial. We affirmed the conviction because there was no likelihood that the lack of evidence reasonably could have affected the verdict. 726 F.2d at 72. A similar conclusion is inescapable in the instant

Page 200

We hold that appellants' claim of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is without merit. ⁵