Legal Opinion
United States v. Mary Jane Johnson Rickey Joe Bradshaw
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided October 10, 2000No. 00-1017PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BYE, Circuit Judge.
Six days before trial, the government informed counsel for defendants Mary Jane Johnson and Rickey Joe Bradshaw that it intended to elicit expert testimony at trial. The defendants immediately moved to suppress that expert evidence. The district court concluded that the gov ernment had reneged on a promise to provide expert testimony in discovery, and granted defendants’ motion to suppress. The court then stayed the trial so the government could pursue this interlocutory appeal. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
A grand jury in the Eastern District of Arkansas indicted Johnson and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Weatherford v. BurseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- United States of America, Cross-Appellant/appellee v. Raymon Ortega, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- United States v. Robert SalernoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- United States v. GraceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc., Formerly Known as Excel Corporation v. Cts CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Tommy Cruz, Luis Rodriguez, Carlos MedinaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- United States v. Pamela Kuenstler, United States of America v. Gregory A. HillCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. Thomas Edward UzenskiCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2006
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.