Francisco Hilt and Sean Alexander v. United States

In an ATF sting operation, the government failed to disclose the identity of the informant pretrial, and the defense was entrapment. The defense discovered the informant’s identity only three business days before trial, with no time to do any investigation. The informant was allowed to testify at trial under a phony name. Post-conviction it was revealed that the informant’s testimony about how he came to encounter the defendants was completely false and that the government failed to disclose other critical impeachment evidence. The question presented is this: Does the government’s suppression of an informant’s identity and impeachment evidence in a sting operation violate Rovario v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 131 (1968), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)?

After Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), may the government prove a defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (possession of firearm by someone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison) or § 922(d)(1) (sale to a prohibited person) merely by the statement that one has a “felony” conviction when the words “felon” or “felony” do not appear anywhere in the statutes?