The local police department has a special task force that has been investigating the sale of Fentanyl - a synthetic opioid that has risen in use and overdose in recent years. The effort to crack down on the sale of the drug in recent years has heightened dramatically because of the high risk of addiction and fatal overdoes. Officer Ollie's report is delivered to Prosecutor Paul. It details a 10-month long investigation into a drug distribution ring centered in Sacramento. Local police have arrested 18 people in a sweep of 3 offices and 2 homes. They uncovered an extensive drug trafficking ring bringing Fentanyl into California through ports in Los Angeles and San Francisco. All the suspects were provided with counsel in a timely manner and Prosecutor Paul has carefully reviewed the files to determine who to charge, and what charges to bring against them.

All the arrestees in this case are Asian. They claim that Paul is singling them out for prosecution in this case because of their race. They point to a news story published in Time Magazine, an investigative journalist had gone undercover, and alleges that law enforcement agencies in California are focusing exclusively on Asian suspects for Fentanyl cases. They filed a motion for discovery claiming that 46 of the last 50 cases in Northern California involving Fentanyl involved Asian defendants.

Their discovery motion asks the trial court to compel Prosecutor Paul and his office to provide five years of past arrest records in all drug cases in the greater Sacramento region including what type of drug, the amounts, what law enforcement agencies were involved in the investigation/arrest of the suspects, the race of the defendants. In support of this motion for discovery the defendants provided affidavits from two undercover agents from the Yolo County Sheriff's Office. These two officers had been fired from their positions for their participation in a drug ring 3 years ago. Their testimony is that they were members of an inter-agency task force with Sacramento Police Dept, and that during that time they heard many stories about Prosecutor Paul and his favoritism toward white defendants. In addition to these two affidavits, the defendants also provided the court with the Time Magazine article. In this story, the writer explained how Caucasian doctors were at the top of the 'fentanyl food chain' making the most money from illicit distribution. The author alleged that the vast majority of doctors involved in illegal prescription-writing are white and that prosecutors are more likely to charge people of color in these cases than Caucasians.

Finally, the defendants provided the court with the testimony of one of the 18 arrestees. This suspect alleged in an affidavit that he overheard Prosecutor Paul talking to someone in the hallway during his interview explaining that he wanted to make sure that he "took these guys down because he was sick of foreigners destroying our communities with this lethal drug."

Prosecutor Paul responded to the defendant's discovery motion by providing the audio and video evidence secured during the undercover investigation. This evidence clearly implicated all 18 of the suspects, included incriminating statements of varying degrees from each one of them. Paul also provided a report by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration outlining the growing Fentanyl crisis. This report, published in early 2022 explained that Fentanyl imports from India and China had skyrocketed between 2018-2021.

Paul, the investing officers, and all of the members of his prosecutorial team submitted affidavits claiming that their process is fair and unbiased and that no bad faith was involved in charging the defendants in this case.

Describe the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Armstrong - carefully explain what is required to win a discovery motion in a selective prosecution case AND what is required to have your case dismissed by winning a claim of selective prosecution.
If you were the judge how would you rule on the defendant's motion for discovery?
Assume (for the sake of argument) that you believe Paul has engaged in misconduct and exercised racial bias in charging the defendants. Should he be exposed to personal civil liability (should the defendants be able to sue Paul for monetary damages)?