Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

California Vs. Trombetta

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 11, 1984

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

57 entries 6 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Valenzuela-bernal US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1982
  2. United States Vs. Agurs US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  3. Mooney Vs. Holohan US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935
  4. United States Vs. Marion US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
  5. United States Vs. Lovasco US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1977
  6. United States Vs. Bryant US Supreme Court · May 05, 1884
  7. U.S. 479 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Trombetta
    Search
  8. U.S. 479 (1984) California v. Trombetta
    Search
  9. did not destroy the breath samples in a calculated effort to circumvent the due process requirement of Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  10. to disclose to criminal defendants favorable evidence that is material either to guilt or to punishment. United States v. Agurs
    Search
  11. Brady v. Page
    Search
  12. Cal.App.3d at 141-142, 190 Cal.Rptr. at 320-321. Relying heavily on the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Hitch
    Search
  13. obligation to report to the defendant and to the trial court whenever government witnesses lie under oath. Napue v. Illinois
    Search
  14. Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  15. evidence that is either material to the guilt of the defendant or relevant to the punishment to be imposed. Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  16. duty to turn over exculpatory evidence that would raise a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. United States v. Agurs
    Search
  17. The prosecution must also reveal the contents of plea agreements with key government witnesses, see Giglio v. United
    Search
  18. be required to disclose the identity of undercover informants who possess evidence critical to the defense, Roviaro v. United
    Search
  19. its sovereign powers so as to hamper a criminal defendant's preparation for trial. For instance, in United States v. Marion
    Search
  20. U. S. 307 , 404 U. S. 324 (1971), and in United States v. Lovasco
    Search
  21. for so long that the defendant's ability to mount an effective defense was impaired. Similarly, in United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
    Search
  22. task of divining the import of materials whose contents are unknown and, very often, disputed. Cf. United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
    Search
  23. discussed due process constraints on the Government's failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence is Killian v. United
    Search
  24. Id. at 242. In many respects, the instant case is reminiscent of Killian v. United
    Search
  25. respondents' breath samples in a calculated effort to circumvent the disclosure requirements established by Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  26. Killian v. United
    Search
  27. Page 467 U. S. 489 To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, see United States v. Agurs
    Search
  28. Michigan v. Clifford
    Search
  29. People v. Hitch
    Search
  30. though the ampoule might have been saved for retesting by the defendant. Relying on this Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  31. U. S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United
    Search
  32. United States v. Bryant
    Search
  33. was uncertainty whether the California courts would extend the Hitch decision to the Intoxilyzer. In People v. Miller
    Search
  34. witnesses on their own behalf and to cross-examine witnesses who have testified on the government's behalf. See Davis v. Alaska
    Search
  35. Washington v. Texas
    Search
  36. In our prosecutorial disclosure cases, we have imposed a similar requirement of materiality, United States v. Agurs
    Search
  37. Moore v. Illinois
    Search
  38. then Intoxilyzer results, without more, might be insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia
    Search
  39. the admissibility of scientific evidence than those imposed by the Federal Constitution. See, e.g., Lauderdale v. State
    Search
  40. City of Lodi v. Hine
    Search
  41. concerning preservation of evidence are generally matters of state, not federal constitutional, law. See United States v. Augenblick
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court California v. Trombetta
    Search
  43. of Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  44. Napue v. Illinois
    Search
  45. Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  46. Giglio v. United
    Search
  47. Roviaro v. United
    Search
  48. Cf. United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
    Search
  49. of Killian v. United
    Search
  50. Michigan v. Clifford
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial