UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2023 (Argued: October 25, 2023 Decided: June 18, 2024) Docket No. 22-1207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DENNIS A. BRADLEY, JR., JESSICA MARTINEZ, Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SACK AND PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. *

The defendants-appellees Dennis A. Bradley, Jr., and Jessica Martinez were charged with, inter alia, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in connection with Bradley’s 2018 campaign for Connecticut state senator. As part of its investigation into the allegations, the government interviewed and acquired from Linda and Barry Jackson, videographers who had been hired by Bradley, a 13-minute and a 28-minute video of an event held at Dolphin’s Cove restaurant in Bridgeport, Connecticut on March 15, 2018, at which Bradley announced his campaign. Although the Jacksons provided the 13-minute video to the government in 2021—and the government timely provided that video to the defendants-appellees—the government did not definitively know of the existence of or come into possession of the 28-minute video until May 24, 2022, less than one week before the then-calendared commencement of trial.

*Judge José A. Cabranes, who was a member of the panel, recused himself following oral argument. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel, who are in agreement. See Local Rule § 0.14(b). 22-1207 United States v. Bradley

In an attempt to comply with its evidentiary disclosure obligations, including those provided by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) and the Connecticut District Court’s Standing Order on Discovery, the government provided the 28-minute video to the defendants-appellees on May 25, 2022. Bradley moved to preclude the 28-minute video on the grounds that the government had violated Rule 16(a)(1)(E) by failing to obtain and produce the video at an earlier date. In an oral ruling on June 2, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Victor A. Bolden, J.) granted that motion and expounded on its reasoning in a Supplemental Memorandum issued July 1, 2022, weeks after the government had filed its notice of appeal. The government’s appeal contests the district court’s determination that the government violated its disclosure obligations, arguing that it did not have the 28- minute video in its possession, custody, or control until May 24, 2022, the eve of trial. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court's order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. JONATHAN N. FRANCIS (David E. Novick, Sandra S. Glover, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellant;

ALEXANDER T. TAUBES (James I. Glasser, David R. Roth, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, CT, on the brief), for Appellee Dennis A. Bradley, Jr.;

DANIEL ERWIN, Assistant Federal Defender, for Terence S. Ward, Federal Defender,