Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Private E1 KEITH R. HAWKINS

Army Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided April 18, 2014No. ARMY 20120070PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1DissentKrauss, Judge

I agree that Brady disclosure requirements apply post-trial through the completion of direct appeal that ends with the Supreme Court. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 n. 25, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Fields v. Wharrie, 672 F.3d 505, 514-515 (7th Cir.2012); Leka v. Portuondo, 257 F.3d 89, 100 (2d Cir.2001); United States v. Behenna, 71 M.J. 228, 246 (C.A.A.F.2012) (Effron, J. dissenting). Whether a broader obligation to disclose under Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ] UCMJ and Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 701 extends beyond the…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. McMann v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Tollett v. HendersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. Private E1 KEITH R. HAWKINSArmy Court of Criminal Appeals · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API