No. 18-6336

Chamontae Walker v. United States

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2018-10-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: brady-disclosure brady-v-maryland constitutional-rights criminal-procedure disclosure due-diligence due-process evidence evidence-disclosure exculpatory-evidence prosecutorial-duty
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-02-15
Related Cases: 18-410 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the government relieved of its Brady v. Maryland duty to disclose evidence favorable to the accused if the defense could obtain the evidence through due diligence?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED This petition raises an issue on which courts are divided: is the government relieved of its Brady v. Maryland duty disclose evidence favorable to the accused if the defense could obtain the evidence through due diligence? Or is the government only relieved of its duty when the disclosure would be redundant because the defense already has the evidence?

Docket Entries

2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2018-12-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 2, 2019.
2018-12-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 17, 2018 to January 2, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2018.
2018-11-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 15, 2018 to December 17, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-08-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 15, 2018)

Attorneys

Chamontae Walker
Thomas C. Paynter — Petitioner
Thomas C. Paynter — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent