No. 18-5225

Junaidu Saljan Savage, aka James Kamara v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-07-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-disclosure brady-v-maryland constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process federal-courts-of-appeal in-camera-review pennsylvania-v-ritchie precedent prosecutorial-evidence prosecutorial-misconduct ritchie standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether, under Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), defendants requesting in camera review for potential required disclosures in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) of specific evidence possessed by the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a plausible showing that the evidence in question, which they have no ability to review, would, in fact, contain material and favorable evidence

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether, under Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), defendants requesting in camera review for potential required disclosures in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) of specific evidence possessed by the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a plausible showing that the evidence in question, which they have no ability to review, would, in fact, contain material and favorable evidence. i

Docket Entries

2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-07-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-07-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-07-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 13, 2018)

Attorneys

Junaidu Saljan Savage
Philip UrofskyShearman and Sterling LLP, Petitioner
Philip UrofskyShearman and Sterling LLP, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent