United States v. Edward L. Morris and Steven M. Gardner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that Seventh Circuit progeny of Brady imposes no duty on the prosecution “to learn of information possessed by other government agencies that have no involvement in the investigation or prosecution at issue”
• misleading omissions are actionable as mail fraud if intended to induce action that would harm the plaintiff
• reasoning that “neither Kyles nor [a prior Seventh Circuit ruling] can be read as imposing a duty on the prosecutor’s office to learn of information possessed by other government agencies that have no involvement in the investigation or prosecution at issue”
• affirming district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward under note 11 because the loss amount did not overstate the seriousness of the offense in a mail and wire fraud case
• finding it “improper for a prosecutor’s office to remain ignorant about certain aspects of a case or to compartmentalize information so that only investigating officers, and not the prosecutors themselves, would be aware of it”
• standing for the proposition that where, as here, alleged Brady material was available to defendants through the exercise of reasonable diligence, they cannot expect the government to conduct their investigation for them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).