One side is accused of leaks — the other of being too tight-lipped.

Lawyers for accused CIA leaker Joshua Schulte say prosecutors withheld crucial evidence that there could be a second suspect in the infamous WikiLeaks case — and they want a federal judge to declare a mistrial because of it, court filings show.

Prosecutors failed to turn over “bombshell” documents related to one of their key witnesses, a CIA staffer known as “Michael,” who was placed on administrative leave over suspicions he was involved with the “Vault 7″ and “Vault 8” dumps that Schulte is accused of, which became the largest loss of top secret data the spy agency has ever endured, his lawyers wrote in the Wednesday filing.

The evening before “Michael” was set to testify in the trial on Feb. 11, prosecutors told Schulte’s lawyers for the first time about the staffer “being a security risk,” telling them he lost his badge back in August after CIA staff found he might be withholding information about the leak, the filing shows.

“Michael” had also failed two polygraph tests about the theft and showed a general “lack of concern” about the CIA’s devastating loss, the “bombshell” documents show, according to the filing.

“This information and any related documents should have been disclosed to the defense pursuant to Brady v. Maryland Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 promptly in August 2019 — not in the middle of Michael’s cross-examination six months later,” Schulte’s lawyers railed in the filing.

The court granted the defense’s request to suspend testimony from “Michael” indefinitely and then reprimanded the government for failing to turn over the information in August when it came to light.

“The basis [for suspending the examination] is the late production of this information. I believe it should have been turned over at or about the time that the decision was made,” Judge Paul Crotty told prosecutors on his reason to suspend the testimony.

“I think it was not accurate and not correct for you to withhold that information until the witness took the stand.”

Schulte’s lawyers said this “misconduct” has “severely prejudiced the defense.”

“If the withheld information had been timely disclosed, it would have materially affected every aspect of the trial preparation and defense, including counsel’s overall strategy. The improperly withheld information would have substantially strengthened the defense’s ability to cross-examine the government’s witnesses, and buttressed the defense’s argument that someone other than Mr. Schulte copied and disclosed the Vault 7 and Vault 8 information,” Schulte’s lawyers argued.

“At this point in the trial, this prejudice cannot be remedied merely by granting a continuance, striking or reopening testimony, or issuing curative instructions. A mistrial is necessary.”

The lawyers also argued prosecutors didn’t let them review “mirror images of the CIA Servers” because they were purportedly too sensitive even for the attorneys, but then allowed the government’s computer expert “unfettered access” to the data, the filing shows.

Prosecutors declined to comment.