Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President

How later courts describe this case

• holding § 440(a) applicable to pending petitions because “unlike situations where retro-activity would affect pre-existing rights, withdrawal of jurisdiction, although realistically disrupting settled expectations, does not preserve pending litigation”
• assuming that materiality is a matter for the jury, reversal inappropriate because error was harmless
• presenting question whether court of appeals is required to raise procedural default
• testimony from female employees concerning sexual relationship with defendant admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b