§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Jesse Friedman, Appellant,v.Kathleen M. Rice,, Respondent.

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. Imbler v. Pachtman

    424 U.S. 409 (1976)   Cited 10,595 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding prosecutors absolutely immune from damages liability for having knowingly presented perjured witness testimony against criminal defendants, observing that the "veracity of witnesses in criminal cases frequently is subject to doubt before and after they testify . . . . If prosecutors were hampered in exercising their judgment as to the use of such witnesses by concern about resulting personal liability, [they often would refrain from calling such witnesses and hence] the triers of fact in criminal cases often would be denied relevant evidence"

  2. Stump v. Sparkman

    435 U.S. 349 (1978)   Cited 8,035 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a judge "will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction"

  3. United States v. Lovasco

    431 U.S. 783 (1977)   Cited 2,165 times
    Holding that waiting to bring charges until the Government is "satisfied they will be able to establish the suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a tactical advantage that supports a finding of a due process violation

  4. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest

    441 U.S. 211 (1979)   Cited 1,267 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party claiming a particularized need for grand jury material must show that disclosure is necessary to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding

  5. Friedman v. Rehal

    618 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 126 times
    Holding that the “Supreme Court has consistently treated exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the same way for the purpose of defining the obligation of a prosecutor to provide Brady material prior to trial, ... and the reasoning underlying Ruiz could support a similar ruling for a prosecutor's obligations prior to a guilty plea”

  6. Matter of Dondi v. Jones

    40 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 250 times
    In Matter of Dondi v Jones (40 N.Y.2d 8, 13, supra), we recognized that prohibition would be an appropriate remedy if it were found that a Special Prosecutor was exceeding the authority conferred upon him through Executive Order by prosecuting a particular criminal defendant under an existing indictment.

  7. Lesher v. Hynes

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2414 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 70 times
    In Lesher, for example, the prosecutor's general explanation that the correspondence sought contained information concerning the particulars of the crime and the identities and statements of witnesses and that "its release posed an obvious risk of prematurely tipping the District Attorney's hand" was sufficient to support reliance on the exemption (id. at 67-68).

  8. Schloss v. Bouse

    876 F.2d 287 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that absolute prosecutorial immunity extends to the decision to prosecute as well as the decision not to prosecute

  9. Bradley v. Fisher

    80 U.S. 335 (1871)   Cited 1,066 times
    Holding a judge to be immune from civil liability for disbarring an attorney without sufficient notice to the attorney as disbarment was in excess of his jurisdiction, not without jurisdiction

  10. People v. Adams

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2107 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 38 times
    In Adams, the Court of Appeals held that the District Attorney's refusal to permit defendant to plead guilty to a reduced charge because the complainant, a sitting judge who presided over cases involving that District Attorney's Office, insisted that the matter go to trial, demonstrated an "unacceptably great appearance of impropriety" (id. at 613, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495, 987 N.E.2d 272).

  11. Section 2244 - Finality of determination

    28 U.S.C. § 2244   Cited 65,263 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."

  12. Section 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    18 U.S.C. § 1512   Cited 4,329 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Defining "law enforcement officer" as "an officer or employee of the Federal Government "

  13. Section 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant

    18 U.S.C. § 1513   Cited 1,170 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Criminalizing retaliation for "providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission ... of any Federal offense "