United States v. Jaynell M. Iverson

prosecutor has obligation to disclose exculpatory information when "defense counsel, although possibly aware of the relevant information, was unable, as a practical matter, to use it to cast doubt upon contrary evidence proffered by the government or its witnesses"

Robinson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2002

“no violation of due process results from prose-cutorial non-disclosure if defense counsel both knows of the information and is able to make use of it but still chooses, for tactical reasons, not to do so”

In re Sealed Case (Brady Obligations)

D.C. Circuit, 1999

holding that "the primary obligation for the disclosure of matters which are essentially in the prosecutorial domain lies with the government"

In re Sealed Case (Brady Obligations)

D.C. Circuit, 1999

"[N]o violation of due process results from prosecutorial nondisclosure if de- fense counsel both knows of the information and is able to make use of it but still chooses, for tactical reasons, not to do so."

In Re Sealed Case No. 99-3096(brady Obligations)

D.C. Circuit, 1999

“[N]o violation of due process results from prosecuto-rial nondisclosure if defense counsel both knows of the information and is able to make use of it but'still chooses, for tactical reasons, not to do so.”

Bragan v. Morgan

M.D. Tennessee, 1992

“it makes no difference whether the testimony is technically perjurious or merely misleading”

United States v. Nicholas J. Mangieri, Jr.

D.C. Circuit, 1982

the right to disclosure can be waived if defense counsel has actual knowledge of the evidence and chooses not to present it

United States v. Jaynell M. Iverson

Opinions

Related