Defendant's mail fraud conviction is affirmed, where: 1) there was no reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had Defendant received certain undisclosed evidence; and 2) any variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial did not substantially prejudice his defense.
Argued December 8, 2008
Decided July 17, 2009
Opinion by Judge Griffith
Peter V. Taylor, Washington, DC
Michael T. Ambrosino, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Washington, DC