United States v. Wang — Court Denies New Trial in Economic Espionage Case Despite Undisclosed Investigation into Government Expert

Background

Ji Wang was indicted in June 2021 on ten counts related to economic espionage and theft of trade secrets while employed at Corning Incorporated, where he worked on Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) projects. The indictment alleged that on July 1, 2016, Wang downloaded a folder containing DARPA Laser Fiber Manufacturing Technology Files from Corning's network onto a personal USB drive, and that he and a business partner used these files to establish a laser fiber business called Quantum Wave. Three counts were dismissed before trial, leaving seven counts for the jury to consider.

After a fifteen-day trial, the jury convicted Wang on November 4, 2025, of economic espionage by copying (Count 1), economic espionage by possession (Count 3), theft of trade secrets by possession (Count 4), attempted economic espionage (Count 5), and attempted theft of trade secrets (Count 6). The jury acquitted him of theft of trade secrets by copying (Count 2) and attempted theft of trade secrets (Count 7). Wang subsequently moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, citing two categories of newly discovered evidence: first, that the government's expert witness, Agent Thomas F. Smith, had been the target of a criminal investigation; and second, statements made by FBI agents after trial suggesting that Wang's conduct was 'not really prohibited' and that Corning had wanted to abandon the prosecution.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied Wang's Rule 33 motion, applying the standard that a new trial is warranted only in 'the most extraordinary circumstances' where letting the guilty verdict stand would be a manifest injustice. Regarding Agent Smith, the court found that the undisclosed criminal investigation was not material under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States because there was no reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the trial's outcome. The court emphasized that Wang's own testimony at trial corroborated Agent Smith's forensic evidence—Wang admitted that the DARPA files were on his Corning-issued laptop and that he downloaded them to a personal USB drive. Additionally, Wang had stipulated to the chain of custody for the hard drive until it reached the Department of Commerce, rendering Agent Smith's testimony about subsequent chain of custody cumulative and non-material.

As for the FBI agents' post-trial statements, the court found them inadmissible as hearsay and, in any event, immaterial. The statement that Wang's conduct was 'not really prohibited' did not equate to authorization, and the defense had already argued at trial that Wang's actions were not prohibited, making any additional impeachment evidence cumulative. Similarly, evidence that Corning questioned the value of the trade secrets or wanted to abandon the prosecution was irrelevant because the Government was not required to prove the exact value of the trade secrets, and the defense had already presented arguments about the FBI's motivations to the jury. The court also denied Wang's requests for an evidentiary hearing, a sworn response from the Government, and an in camera review of Government communications with Corning, concluding that even assuming the truth of the new evidence, a new trial was not warranted.

Key Takeaways

• Undisclosed impeachment evidence about a government witness is not material under Brady/Giglio when the defendant's own testimony corroborates the witness's key evidence.
• A defendant's stipulation to chain of custody can render subsequent challenges to that chain of custody non-material for purposes of a new trial motion.
• Post-trial statements by law enforcement agents that a defendant's conduct was 'not really prohibited' do not establish authorization and are cumulative if the defense already raised similar arguments at trial.
• Evidence that a victim questioned the value of trade secrets or wanted to abandon prosecution is irrelevant where the government need not prove exact monetary value and the defense already argued improper motive to the jury.
• Rule 33 motions based on newly discovered evidence face a stringent materiality standard requiring a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome.

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces the high bar for obtaining a new trial based on undisclosed impeachment evidence in criminal trade secret prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act. Even serious allegations of government misconduct—such as an expert witness being under criminal investigation—do not warrant a new trial where the defendant's own admissions corroborate the challenged evidence. The ruling also clarifies that evidence of a victim's internal doubts about prosecution value or law enforcement's resource-driven motivations is generally immaterial to the statutory elements of trade secret theft where the defense has already presented similar impeachment theories to the jury.