Legal Opinion

People v. Eddington

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 2, 1974No. Docket 17081PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJ. H. Gillis, P. J.

Prior to defendant’s retrial mandated by People v Eddington, 387 Mich 551; 198 NW2d 297 (1972), defense counsel sought discovery of certain glass particles once imbedded in defendant’s shoes which expert testimony at the first trial indicated matched certain broken backdoor glass in the murder victims’ home. The prosecution agreed to produce the glass particles for defense examination. When they could not be located, defendant moved to suppress the prosecution’s expert testimony. The trial judge granted that motion, unless the missing samples could be subsequently produced. He did not find an…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. Moore v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. People v. OliverMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
  3. People v. TriplettMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. State v. RushSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
  5. People v. AmisonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976

17 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