Legal Opinion · Concurrence

City of Grand Forks v. Ramstad

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 2003No. 20020120Published

1ConcurrenceSandstrom, Justice

[¶ 36] I agree with the result reached by the majority and write, separately to emphasize that in this case the State Toxicologist’s office, like the Highway Patrol in State v. Fitterer, 2002 ND 170, ¶ 2, 652 N.W.2d 908, was by law and in fact closely involved in the development of the criminal case. On the other hand, the defense in this case submitted a vast discovery request containing some 146 questions and subparts, much of it bearing little relation to the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Rule 16 of the North Dakota Rules of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. HaldemanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
  3. United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. TurnerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
  4. United States v. Deloy C. RossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  5. United States v. Odell MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976

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