§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Vilma Bautista, Appellant.

Brief

5 Cited authorities

  1. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,391 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  2. Leka v. Portuondo

    257 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 277 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the prosecution failed to make sufficient disclosure [of a witness' testimony] in sufficient time to afford the defense an opportunity for use" and therefore that "testimony was 'suppressed' by the prosecution"

  3. People v. Vilardi

    76 N.Y.2d 67 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 343 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Comparing the state law standard — whether there was a "reasonable possibility" that withheld evidence could have affected the result of the proceeding — to the federal standard of "reasonable probability"

  4. U.S. v. Rodriguez

    496 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 152 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government need not take notes of witness interviews merely to memorialize any potentially inconsistent statements that could be used for impeachment purposes

  5. People v. Contreras

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2647 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 18 times

    No. 37. Argued February 17, 2009. decided April 7, 2009. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered January 3, 2008. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, attempted