News story at Main Justice. Opinion here. It was for a Brady violation. The DOJ had weighed in with an amicus brief on behalf of the AUSA. (2nd h/t: Legal Profession Blog) In addition to raising a potential jurisdictional battle -- can the DC Bar effectively regulate federal prosecutors? -- the case pits the Model Rules against the US Consitution. Many people read MR 3.8(e) as being broader than the Brady obligations. If so, the DC Bar has fairly direct control over federal prosecutors in the discharge of their federal duties. Here's the opening from the DOJ brief:
The issue before the Board on Professional Responsibility is whether former assistant United States Attorney Andrew J. Kline violated District of Columbia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(e) by failing to disclose certain information to the defense in a criminal case. The United States believes that the Hearing Committee Number Nine misconstrued the scope of Rule 3.8(e) when, ten years after the fact and in direct contravention of Comment [1] to the Rule, it found that respondent's disclosure obligations under the Rule were materially broader than respondent's disclosure obligations under the Constitution. The Hearing Committee also misconstrued the requirements of substantive constitutional law under Brady V. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). If adopted by the Board and, ultimately, by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Hearing Committee's interpretation of rule 3.8(e) would subject federal and District of Columbia prosecutors, including respondant, to an improper standard and potentially serious, unwarranted disciplinary sanctions.
[The original version of this post suggested that the AUSA had received a 30-day suspension. Upon reading Mike Frisch's version at Legal Profession Blog, I realized that the decision is still just a recommendation that can be accepted or rejected by the DC Court of Appeals.]