In an astonishing development, the Department of Justice has requested that the court set aside the jury verdicts against Ted Stevens and dismiss the indictment against him with prejudice.

The bombshell came in a three-page filing this morning that cites the Department's discovery of evidence that the trial prosecutors should have turned over to the defense. Wednesday's filing says this evidence was uncovered last week by the new team of government lawyers brought in to investigate allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. The newly discovered evidence casts doubt on the veracity of critical evidence against Stevens provided by key prosecution witness Bill Allen. In the face of that new evidence, the motion filed Wednesday acknowledged that one of the government's own previous filings was "inaccurate."

There is so much to sort through here that this blog post will be in a question and answer format.

What is the effect of this decision on the guilty verdicts against Ted Stevens that the jury in Washington, D.C. delivered last October?

This case is dead, and the jury verdicts will be quickly voided as a matter of law. The filing this morning is formally couched as a motion by the government in which the prosecution asks the court to set aside the verdict and dismiss the indictment with prejudice, but that is definitely just a formality. In a verdict announced last October, a jury in Washington, D.C. found former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R.-Alaska) guilty of seven counts of failing to disclose gifts and/or loans on annual Senate forms. That case is not only lying on the ground with a stake in its heart, it's been buried so far under the surface of the earth the world's best oil and gas driller couldn't get to it.

Until this morning, the case was in post-trial proceedings before the judge decided post-trial motions and either went to sentencing or granted the defense some relief. That's still officially true, but Judge Emmet Sullivan will obviously grant the government's request now. He set a hearing for April 7 at 10 a.m. at which that is almost certain to occur.

Was this decision by the government to kill the case expected?

Not by me. As readers of this blog-and viewers of my C-SPAN TV appearance-will recall, I predicted that Judge Sullivan would ultimately not grant the defense motions and would instead sentence Ted Stevens, thus setting up a lengthy appeal. So much for that prediction-and so much for my failure of imagination. I never considered the possibility that the Department of Justice would pull the plug on its own case.

It appears this announcement amazed most other observers as well.

So congratulations goes to those who at least predicted that Judge Sullivan would either order a new trial or dismiss the indictment. One was Jeff Levin, a New Hampshire lawyer who told me some weeks ago that he thought that Special Agent Chad Joy's allegations about the prosecution's conduct that came out after the trial would lead the judge to dismiss the case.

Why did the Attorney General make this decision to kill the case, particularly after the federal government devoted so many years and so many dollars to this prosecution?

Let's start with the statement issued this morning issued by Attorney General Eric Holder and then go to the analysis of National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg, who broke this story early this morning.

General Holder said that based on a "careful review," he had concluded that "certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial." Based on that conclusion and "in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case," he determined that it was "in the interest of justice" to dismiss the indictment and end the case.

Totenberg's report suggests additional factors in Holder's decision to kill the case:

1. The increasing drumbeat of allegations of misconduct by DoJ attorneys as well as by an FBI agent would lead to "more ugly hearings" in front of Judge Sullivan.