Legal Opinion
Braunskill v. Hilton
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided February 27, 1986No. Civ. A. 85-2008PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge.
Petitioner Dana Braunskill, presently confined at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, brings this pro se petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The issue in this case is whether it is constitutionally permissible in a state criminal prosecution for the trial judge to refuse to permit an alibi witness to testify solely because defense counsel did not respond to the state’s discovery request within the time required by the state’s notice of alibi rule. I hold that under the circumstances of this case, in agreement with Judge Stern in Hackett…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hilton v. BraunskillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- People v. HamptonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
- Chappee v. Commonwealth of MassachusettsDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1987
- Escalera v. CoombeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1987
- People v. PronovostColorado Court of Appeals · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.