Citation network
United States Vs. Bagley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 02, 1985
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
-
U.S. 667 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. BagleySearch
-
U.S. 667 (1985) United States v. BagleySearch
-
these contracts, which he could have used to impeach the witnesses, violated his right to due process under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
BLACKMUN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion of the Court except as to Part III. In Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
contracts, which he could have used to impeach O'Connor and Mitchell, violated his right to due process under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
to these witnesses. Nor did the United States suppress evidence favorable to the defendant, in violation of Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
s motion to vacate his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Bagley v. LumpkinSearch
-
In Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
F.2d at 1464 (quoting Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
F.2d at 1464. We granted certiorari, 469 U.S. 1016 (1984), and we now reverse. II The holding in Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. at 373 U. S. 87 . See also Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 786 , 408 U. S. 794 -795 (1972). The Court explained in United States v. AgursSearch
-
Impeachment evidence, however, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule. See Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
so that, if disclosed and used effectively, it may make the difference between conviction and acquittal. Cf. Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
F.2d at 1464. Relying on Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
requiring automatic reversal. 719 F.2d at 1464 (quoting Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
This Court has rejected any such distinction between impeachment evidence and exculpatory evidence. In Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
Thus, the Court of Appeals' holding is inconsistent with our precedents. Moreover, the court's reliance on Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
constitutional error of the first magnitude, and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.' Brookhart v. JanisSearch
-
U.S. at 415 U. S. 318 (quoting Smith Page 473 U. S. 678 v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 129 , 390 U. S. 131 (1968)). See also United States v. CronicSearch
-
starting point is the framework for evaluating the materiality of Brady evidence established in United States v. AgursSearch
-
of the Agurs standard distinguish among the three situations described in Agurs. In United States v. Valenzuela-BernalSearch
-
And in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 295 U. S. 78 , 295 U. S. 88 (1935). See Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
See United States v. AgursSearch
-
Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 786 , 408 U. S. 795 (1972). See also California v. TrombettaSearch
-
in a series of cases dealing with convictions based on the prosecution's knowing use of perjured testimony. In Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
Id. at 294 U. S. 112 . The Court reaffirmed this principle in broader terms in Pyle v. KansasSearch
-
testimony were sufficient to charge a due process violation. The Court again reaffirmed this principle in Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury's verdict derives from Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. at 360 U. S. 271 . See n 8, supra. See also Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 154 (1972) (quoting Napue, 360 U.S. at 360 U. S. 271 ). Napue antedated Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. at 386 U. S. 24 (quoting Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
affecting the overall credibility of witnesses corrupts the process to some degree in all instances, see Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
bias simply may not be said to be irrelevant, or its omission harmless. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE said in Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
right at issue adequately takes account of the interests this Court sought to protect in its decision in Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
Giles v. MarylandSearch
-
withholding from the defense evidence favorable to the defendant's case in the prosecutor's files. See, e.g., Pyle v. KansasSearch
-
will assure that the defendant has an opportunity to discover every existing piece of helpful evidence. But cf. Ake v. OklahomaSearch
-
B Brady v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial