Joseph Cammarata v. United States

Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, as amended by the Due Process Protections Act of 2020 to add subsection (f), directing that in all criminal proceedings the judge “shall issue” an oral and written order confirming the prosecution’s disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland and the consequences of violating them, imposes a duty on the district court that a defendant cannot forfeit by silence; and whether the complete failure to issue that order in both of the prosecutions brought against this petitioner may be treated as harmless where the government then withheld every category of exculpatory evidence in its possession, each of which independently defeated an element of 26 U.S.C. 7201: the business records establishing expenses exceeding the income charged, the Forms 1042-S showing that the income had been reported to the Internal Revenue Service and tax withheld and paid on it, and the tens of thousands of settlement administrator letters telling claimants that the payments were generally not taxable income.

Whether the government satisfies Brady v. Maryland by delivering exculpatory material to counsel who represented the defendant in a different prosecution, where the defendant was never provided that material, thereafter proceeds pro se under Faretta v. California, and is transferred to a county jail a month before trial without his discovery computer and without his legal work; and whether a defendant who exercises the right of self­ representation thereby waives, within the meaning of United States v. Olano, any objection that he was unable to review discovery delivered to counsel in a different case, when he told the district court so at every pretrial hearing and in every motion.

Whether 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and the Due Process Clause permit the judges of a court of appeals to decide a criminal appeal, and to deny rehearing, where the attorney who serves as the Assistant Circuit Executive for Legal Affairs in that court’s own Office of the Circuit Executive, an active member of the bar whose employer and business address of record are the court itself, is asserted, without denial by the government or by any court in more than two years, to be the spouse of the Securities and Exchange Commission attorney who led the parallel enforcement action that froze the defendant’s assets and produced a judgment against him of $50,471,573; where the Chief Judge who sat on the panel had himself authored the one sentence, unexplained order denying the motion to disqualify the entire court on that ground; and where requests for a statement of reasons were denied without reasons.