Legal Opinion

William L. Campbell, III v. R.C. Marshall the Attorney General of Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided July 23, 1985No. 84-3404PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ENGEL, Circuit Judge.

The principal issue in this habeas corpus appeal is whether the failure of the state to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence in its possession renders involuntary an otherwise voluntary, counseled plea of guilty. We assume without deciding that under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the state’s conduct here in suppressing information favorable to the petitioner would have violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights if he had been convicted after a trial without the benefit of that information. Nonetheless, we conclude…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

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

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. Tyron Brown v. Lee LucasCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  2. Javier Hincapie Sanchez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  3. Vietchau Nguyen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
  4. George Alvarez v. City of BrownsvilleCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
  5. Johnson v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1992

47 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