Citation network
Strickler Vs. Greene
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 1999
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 263 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Strickler V. GreeneSearch
-
an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based, in part, on trial counsel's failure to file a motion under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
during state habeas proceedings that petitioner had already received everything known to the government. See Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
U. S. 478 , 488, and Amadeo v. ZantSearch
-
U. S. 214 , 222. Gray v. NetherlandSearch
-
U. S. 152 , and McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. Kyles v. WhitleySearch
-
joins Part III. 1 The opinion of the Court of Appeals is unreported. The judgment order is reported, Strickler v. PruettSearch
-
Fourth Circuit, we granted certiorari, 525 U. S. 809 (1998), to consider (1) whether the Commonwealth violated Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
the Commonwealth, through its prosecutor, is charged with knowledge of the Stoltzfus materials for purposes of Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
sentence that the judge later imposed. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Strickler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based, in part, on trial counsel's failure to file a motion under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
an open file policy.16 The Circuit Court dismissed the petition, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Strickler v. MurraySearch
-
a direct claim that his conviction was invalid because the prosecution had failed to comply with the rule of Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
App. 423 (citing Stockton v. MurraySearch
-
the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, United States v. AgursSearch
-
and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, United States v. BagleySearch
-
see also Kyles v. WhitleySearch
-
Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
The evidence at issue must be favorable to the ac- 19 See, e. g., Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
extend to materials that, whatever their other characteristics, may be used to impeach a witness. United States v. BagleySearch
-
that impeded trial counsel's access to the factual basis for making a Brady claim.23 As we explained in Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
we note that a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel, see Reed v. RossSearch
-
U. S., at 16, or that 'some interference by officials,' Brown v. AllenSearch
-
see also Amadeo v. ZantSearch
-
see also Yeatts v. MurraySearch
-
Strick ler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Commonwealth had failed to comply with Brady at trial. 32 Respondent also argues that our decisions in Gray v. NetherlandSearch
-
U. S. 152 (1996), and McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
are Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
U. S., at 488, and Amadeo v. ZantSearch
-
today. See Bousley v. UnitedSearch
-
Strickler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
theory it embodied, given at petitioner's trial. Strickler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Strickler v. MurraySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial