Nickolis S. Chapman v. State of Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Nickolis S. Chapman v. State of Maryland

516 F.2d 1277, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14461

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1975

Docket74-1705

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 516 F.2d 1277 (Nickolis S. Chapman v. State of Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nickolis S. Chapman v. State of Maryland, 516 F.2d 1277, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14461 (4th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of habeas relief by the district court. In a thorough opinion the district judge reviewed the determinations of the Maryland courts and concluded that suppression of a police report was not “material” in the sense that word was used in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. He noted that the trial was nonjury. He also noted that to the extent that the police report cast doubt on the identification testimony of the prosecuting witness it was cumulative. Other evidence clearly indicated her initial confusion as to how many persons had raped her and her capacity positively to identify this particular appel *1278 lant. The district court correctly concluded, we think, that there was no “reasonable likelihood” that production of the report would have affected the triers of fact. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of habeas relief by the district court. In a thorough opinion the district judge reviewed the determinations of the Maryland courts and concluded that suppression of a police report was not “material” in the sense that word was used in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. He noted that the trial was nonjury. He also noted that to the extent that the police report cast doubt on the identification testimony of the prosecuting witness it was cumulative. Other evidence clearly indicated her initial confusion as to how many persons had raped her and her capacity positively to identify this particular appel *1278 lant. The district court correctly concluded, we think, that there was no “reasonable likelihood” that production of the report would have affected the triers of fact. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F.2d 1277, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickolis-s-chapman-v-state-of-maryland-ca4-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack