Legal Opinion
United States v. Mathur
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided November 3, 2010No. 09-1704PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-appellant Amit Mathur wants a new trial or, at least, resentencing based on the government’s tardy disclosure of Brady material. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Concluding, as we do, that the district court acted appropriately in addressing the delayed disclosure, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
We bifurcate our discussion of the background events, first rehearsing the underlying facts and then charting the course of the proceedings below.
A. The Scheme.
Refined to its essentials, this case involves a kaleidoscopic stream of…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Strickler v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United States v. Ilario M.A. ZanninoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- United States v. Ramos-GonzalezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015
- George Alvarez v. City of BrownsvilleCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
- United States v. Flete-GarciaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019
- United States v. StellatoCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2015
- United States v. Ramos-GonzalezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.