to consider two different courses of action that would deter future misconduct like this since “[qjuite as important as assuring a fair trial ... is assuring that the circumstances that gave rise to the misconduct won’t be repeated in other cases.” Kojayan, 8 F.3d at 1324. If a request by the defense is made, one option on remand may be for “the district court to determine whether to retry the defendant! ] or dismiss the indictment with prejudice as a sanction for the government’s misbehavior.” Id. at 1325. The remedy of dismissal with prejudice, which is strong medicine for the entire prosecutorial group, is available pursuant to a district court’s supervisory powers over the attorneys who practice before it. Id.; see also United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Second, the district court may want to
holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an indictment with prejudice where the prosecutor showed reckless disregard for the prosecutions constitutional obligations holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question