9th Cir. upholds the dismissal with prejudice of the indictments against Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, and sixteen others after prosecutors began disclosing Brady violations after trial began. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/06/18-10287.pdf

This is the one where prosecutors said the Bundys had deceitfully claimed to have been under surveillance and surrounded by snipers in order to encourage others to join them.

And then said they were on a "fishing expedition" when they sought information for their defense.

And then prosecutors withheld evidence that they were in fact under surveillance and there had been officers in tactical gear deployed in overwatch positions near the ranch.

And this slowly unraveled over the course of eight weeks while the district court got more and more pissed.

Slow-motion train wreck.

In a companion case, 9th Cir. holds that it violated the Sixth Amendment to prevent one of the Bundy Ranch defendants from representing himself bc he asked a prejudicial question for which he then apologized.

Structural error requiring new trial. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/06/18-10293.pdf