37 Cited authorities

Strickler v. Greene
527 U.S. 263 (1999) Cited 6,390 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newspaper article detailing that a witness had been interviewed by the police did not suffice to put a defendant's lawyer on notice that records and evidence concerning the witness existed and had been suppressed
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,445 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
Giglio v. United States
405 U.S. 150 (1972) Cited 12,206 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that prosecution must disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses where witness's credibility is "an important issue in the case"
United States v. Agurs
427 U.S. 97 (1976) Cited 7,516 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"
Youngblood v. West Virginia
547 U.S. 867 (2006) Cited 411 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Brady violation occurs "when the government fails to turn over even evidence that is ‘known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor’ "
Dennis v. United States
384 U.S. 855 (1966) Cited 936 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the true nature of the crime was the entire conspiracy to falsely obtain benefits from the N.L.R.B., in violation of § 371, and not merely the false statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy
Daye v. Attorney General of New York
696 F.2d 186 (2d Cir. 1982) Cited 1,977 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reliance on state cases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations" fairly presents the federal claim
U.S. v. Novaton
271 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 2001) Cited 312 times
Holding that "statements concerning the testimony that would become available by severing trials must be specific and exonerative, rather than conclusory or self-serving, in order to justify severance"
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"
Milke v. Ryan
711 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 156 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the personnel file of a testifying officer detailing that he had been suspended for sexual misconduct - and that he had lied about it - was impeachment evidence that needed to be disclosed
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,959 times 689 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,528 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

The People, Appellant,v.Mark Garrett, Respondent.

37 Cited authorities

Holding that a newspaper article detailing that a witness had been interviewed by the police did not suffice to put a defendant's lawyer on notice that records and evidence concerning the witness existed and had been suppressed

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Holding that prosecution must disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses where witness's credibility is "an important issue in the case"

Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"

Holding that a Brady violation occurs "when the government fails to turn over even evidence that is ‘known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor’ "

Holding that the true nature of the crime was the entire conspiracy to falsely obtain benefits from the N.L.R.B., in violation of § 371, and not merely the false statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy

Holding that "reliance on state cases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations" fairly presents the federal claim

Holding that "statements concerning the testimony that would become available by severing trials must be specific and exonerative, rather than conclusory or self-serving, in order to justify severance"

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"

Holding that the personnel file of a testifying officer detailing that he had been suspended for sexual misconduct - and that he had lied about it - was impeachment evidence that needed to be disclosed

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"