United States v. Five Persons
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BIUNNO, District Judge.
At the pretrial conference (F.R.Crim.P. 17.1) of [date deleted] the question of compliance with the standard order of this district, entered at arraignment, was raised. The question focused on par. 1(f), which, at the required conference to be held within 10 days of arraignment, requires the United States to:
“(f). Permit defendant’s attorney to inspect, copy or photograph any exculpatory evidence within the purview of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215.”
It is well established that neither Brady, nor its predecessors nor its progeny…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Napue v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. BoffaDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1980
- United States v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- United States Ex Rel. Herring v. FentonDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1981
- United States v. SnellDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
- State v. SantiagoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.