United States v. Harmon, No. 15-10034 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed her convictions for money laundering, arguing that the prosecutor’s errors before the grand jury constitute structural error, requiring reversal. Defendant also argues that the government’s failure to disclose impeachment evidence about a hostile defense witness mandates a new trial. The court held that where the intentional misconduct by the prosecution goes to a witness’s credibility, it is not structural error. While the court shared concerns that its holding could encourage prosecutorial misconduct, United States v. Mechanik makes clear that something other than dismissal - such as a state bar inquiry or an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility - is the proper recourse under these facts. The court also concluded that the prosecution's actions at trial - asking the district court ex parte to decide in camera whether the witness's informant activity need be disclosed - were not improper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming convictions for money laundering, the panel held that a prosecutor’s failure to correct false testimony before a grand jury and failure to disclose impeachment information about a grand jury witness – even if done intentionally – do not constitute structural error requiring automatic reversal, but are harmless as a matter of law after a petit jury returns a guilty verdict. The panel explained that United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986), makes clear that something other than dismissal – such as a state bar inquiry or an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility – is the proper recourse under the facts of this case. The panel held that the prosecution’s asking the district court ex parte at trial to decide in camera whether the witness’s informant activity need be disclosed was not improper.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.