Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the 2000-2001 District Grand Jury in & for the First Judicial District

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 13, 2004No. 03SC209Published

1DissentJustice Martinez

The ability of parties named in a grand jury report to respond sufficiently to the report varies depending on the nature and amount of information in the report. In some cases, parties may not need to look beyond a grand jury report to respond to the points raised in the report. When a grand jury report details the evidence underlying its conclusions, the report may equip named parties with sufficient information to respond. However, in other cases, named par*928ties may require more information than that provided in a grand jury report. Thus, when a report fails to specify the evidence…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Paul v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. State Engineer v. Castle Meadows, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1993

6 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