context: This is certainly so in the case of an order that broadly precludes evidence, one we would expect to be accompanied by findings -- not present here -- of government misconduct and prejudice to the defendants.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 857 F.2d. 659, 659
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that the government had not violated any discovery orders or behaved duplicitously
citation_a.sentence: See Schwartz, 857 F.2d. at 659 (noting that the government had not violated any discovery orders or behaved duplicitously); see also United States v. Gonzales, 164 F.3d 1285, 1292 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that “[i]n selecting a proper [discovery] sanction, a court should typically consider (1) the reasons the government delayed producing requested materials, including whether the government acted in bad faith; (2) the extent of prejudice to defendant as a result of the delay; and (3) the feasibility of curing the prejudice with a continuance”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 164 F.3d 1285, 1292
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "[i]n selecting a proper [discovery] sanction, a court should typically consider (1
citation_b.sentence: See Schwartz, 857 F.2d. at 659 (noting that the government had not violated any discovery orders or behaved duplicitously); see also United States v. Gonzales, 164 F.3d 1285, 1292 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that “[i]n selecting a proper [discovery] sanction, a court should typically consider (1) the reasons the government delayed producing requested materials, including whether the government acted in bad faith; (2) the extent of prejudice to defendant as a result of the delay; and (3) the feasibility of curing the prejudice with a continuance”).