Legal Opinion

United States v. Amawi

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided January 18, 2008No. 3:06CR719Published

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

JAMES G. CARR, Chief Judge.

This is a criminal case in which the defendants have filed [or joined in] a motion for discovery. [Doc. 313]. This order will adjudicate the remaining unresolved issues raised by that motion.

In general, that portion of the motion which remains unresolved relates to the defendants’ demand for production generally under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). At the outset, I note that, as a general rule, I am of the view that the Brady doctrine does not provide a basis for pre-trial discovery. See U.S. v. Skeddle,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Steven Warshak v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  3. Harllel B. Jones, Cross-Appellant v. A. R. Jago, Superintendent, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1978
  4. United States v. Amado Gonzalez PenaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  5. United States v. AndersonDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API