19 Cited authorities

Connick v. Thompson
563 U.S. 51 (2011) Cited 7,038 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that not even "four reversals could . . . have put Connick on notice that the office's Brady training was inadequate"
Canton v. Harris
489 U.S. 378 (1989) Cited 16,325 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the city could be held liable for failing to train police officers in determining whether detainees needed medical care because of the likelihood that, absent proper training, the officers would default on their constitutional obligations
Kastigar v. United States
406 U.S. 441 (1972) Cited 2,163 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Assocs
483 U.S. 143 (1987) Cited 1,185 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that civil RICO actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations
Hoffman v. United States
341 U.S. 479 (1951) Cited 1,700 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant could not be compelled to testify about the whereabouts of a fugitive witness where defendant’s answers would have "forge[d] links in a chain of facts imperiling [defendant] with conviction of a federal crime"
United States v. Apfelbaum
445 U.S. 115 (1980) Cited 306 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[n]either the [federal use] immunity statute nor the Fifth Amendment precludes the use of respondent's immunized testimony at a subsequent prosecution for making false statements"
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
State v. King
180 Ariz. 268 (Ariz. 1994) Cited 172 times
Holding that where no new evidence was to be received, no evidence was improperly excluded, and mitigating evidence was, at best, de minimis, supreme court could reweigh factors, citing Bible
Earp v. Cullen
623 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 68 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that even if the mental-health professionals who evaluated the petitioner at the time of trial failed to diagnose the petitioner properly, their failure "does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel"
Brown v. Walker
161 U.S. 591 (1896) Cited 609 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896), a witness raised the issue, claiming the privilege in a federal proceeding based on his fear of prosecution by a State, but we found that a statute under which immunity from federal prosecution had been conferred provided for immunity from state prosecution as well, obviating any need to reach the issue raised.
Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights
18 U.S.C. § 241 Cited 4,188 times 15 Legal Analyses
Criminalizing civil-rights violations
Section 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
18 U.S.C. § 242 Cited 3,830 times 8 Legal Analyses
Noting that "if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section," the defendant "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both"
Section 3281 - Capital offenses
18 U.S.C. § 3281 Cited 124 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that no statute of limitations exists for "any offense punishable by death"

Milke v. Phoenix, City of et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that not even "four reversals could . . . have put Connick on notice that the office's Brady training was inadequate"

Holding that the city could be held liable for failing to train police officers in determining whether detainees needed medical care because of the likelihood that, absent proper training, the officers would default on their constitutional obligations

Holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"

Holding that civil RICO actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations

Holding that a defendant could not be compelled to testify about the whereabouts of a fugitive witness where defendant’s answers would have "forge[d] links in a chain of facts imperiling [defendant] with conviction of a federal crime"

Holding that "[n]either the [federal use] immunity statute nor the Fifth Amendment precludes the use of respondent's immunized testimony at a subsequent prosecution for making false statements"

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 that where no new evidence was to be received, no evidence was improperly excluded, and mitigating evidence was, at best, de minimis, supreme court could reweigh factors, citing Bible

Holding that even if the mental-health professionals who evaluated the petitioner at the time of trial failed to diagnose the petitioner properly, their failure "does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel"

Criminalizing civil-rights violations

Noting that "if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section," the defendant "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both"

Stating that no statute of limitations exists for "any offense punishable by death"