Citation network
United States Vs. Agurs
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 97 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. AgursSearch
-
U.S. 97 (1976) United States v. AgursSearch
-
record, and that the judge's first-hand appraisal of the entire record was thorough and entirely reasonable. Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
to support the argument that respondent acted in self-defense, deprived her of a fair trial under the rule of Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
the constitutional requirement of due process, we reverse. Page 427 U. S. 103 II The rule of Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense. In the first situation, typified by Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
is in his file, he should be presumed to recognize its significance even if he has actually overlooked it. Cf. Giglo v. UnitedSearch
-
Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. BurksSearch
-
Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
and Comment, Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
which the petitioner was overreached. The denial of due process of law vitiated the verdict and the sentence. Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
U. S. 545 . The verdict is not saved because other competent evidence would support it. Culombe v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner in Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
say that the deprival of this defendant of that sporting chance through the use of a bifurcated trial ( cf. Williams v. NewSearch
-
In his opinion concurring in the judgment in Giles v. MarylandSearch
-
guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The principle of Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
in evaluating motions for new trial under Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 33 based on newly discovered evidence. See, e.g., Ashe v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. ThompsonSearch
-
United States v. HouleSearch
-
United States v. MeyersSearch
-
Heald v. UnitedSearch
-
Stout v. CuppSearch
-
Peterson v. UnitedSearch
-
Lessard v. DicksonSearch
-
United States v. TomaioloSearch
-
it is that the State in its zeal to convict a defendant not suppress evidence that might exonerate him. See Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
a conscientious prosecutor will fail to appreciate the significance of some items of information. See United States v. KeoghSearch
-
standard for cases involving perjury from cases such as Napue v. PageSearch
-
U. S. 121 Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), and Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
discovered evidence would probably produce a different verdict in the event of a retrial. See, e.g., United States v. KahnSearch
-
United States v. RodriguezSearch
-
United States v. CurranSearch
-
See United States v. KeoghSearch
-
In Stout v. CuppSearch
-
which would, quite obviously, dispose of the defendant's claim under any standard that might be suggested. In Peterson v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 1079. The court in Lessard v. DicksonSearch
-
with the argument defense counsel would have made with the withheld evidence. Id. at 92. Finally, United States v. TomaioloSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial