Search for: "Brady v. Maryland" Results 541 - 560 of 774
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Apr 2023, 7:38 am by Amy Howe
Judge Jerome Winsberg ruled that the prosecution’s failure to provide Brown with Edge’s statement violated the Supreme Court’s landmark 1963 decision in Brady v. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 11:19 am by Steve Hall
The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 10:16 am
Supreme Court's decision in Brady v. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 9:00 pm
Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), which requires making available tax-paid lawyers for indigent defendants facing incarcerable prosecutions; and   Brady v. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 1:10 pm by John Elwood
Shoop, 22-5058Issues: (1) Whether a petitioner who raises a claim under Brady v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 8:42 am by John Elwood
Lynaugh]”; (2) whether the state’s post-trial disclosure of evidence relating to ammunition used in the crime resulted in a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments under Brady v. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 3:42 am by Russ Bensing
  In 1988, the state botched D’Ambrosio’s trial by violating Brady v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 1:32 pm by William McGrath
Attorney's Office materials relating to the 44 witnesses and ordered the prosecutors to review those memoranda and promptly turn over to the defense any material under Brady v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:57 am by Maureen Johnston
Johnson; (2) whether a conviction aided by the prosecution's failure to produce evidence that contradicted its theory and showed that the evidence it did rely upon and the resulting jury arguments were false violates the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments under this Court's Brady v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 6:56 pm by Amy Howe
Many years later, Johnson sought to vacate his conviction on the ground that prosecutors had failed to tell him that the witness had been paid for her testimony – in violation of their obligations under Brady v. [read post]