The case came down to the definition of “official acts” under the federal bribery statute, and therefore the propriety of the instructions the jury were given.

I don’t recall anywhere in the opinion where prosecutorial misconduct was even mentioned, let alone a “unanimous finding that [Smith was] a corrupt prosecutor who violated the defendant’s rights.” I submit that the reason I don’t remember it is because it ain’t there and was not an issue in the case.

Perhaps, though, I misremember. If so kindly point out where this is in the opinion. Otherwise it seems you have pulled this hot take from the same rich source you mine for many of your posts— your ass.