Opinion ID: 657239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reversal of Conviction

Text: 15 Woodley asserts that the late disclosures prejudiced his defense in two ways: (1) he was unable to refer to some documents in his opening statement and (2) he could not prepare adequately his experts before trial. 16 Contrary to the government's assertion, we find that these prejudice claims were timely raised. No bright line rule exists to determine whether a matter has been properly raised at trial. Rather, the argument must be raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it. In re E.R. Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.1989). Woodley moved for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial based partly on the government's actions. The court had an opportunity to review the validity of its prior orders. 17 We review de novo challenges to a conviction based on alleged Brady violations. United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761, 764 (9th Cir.1991). Evidence is material under the Brady rule only if there is a reasonable probability that, had [it] been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1984). Although disclosure must be made when it is still of substantial value to the accused, the prosecution need not produce Brady material before trial. Aichele, 941 F.2d at 764. 18 Woodley was not materially prejudiced. He used all of the disputed evidence effectively at trial. See United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir.1988). The court also took the unusual step of allowing him to depose witnesses linked to the Fay letter. The court's action cured any potential for resulting prejudice. 19