No. 19-6362

Fernando Nunez v. Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Pennsylvania
Docketed: 2019-10-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-doctrine brady-v-maryland constitutional-rights criminal-procedure discovery due-diligence due-process evidence evidence-disclosure exculpatory-evidence prosecutorial-misconduct
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities
Latest Conference: 2019-11-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are criminal defendants required to plead and prove their due diligence as an additional element under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented below leads many lower state and federal courts to differ . ; or split on the following question: : ; ARE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS' REQUIRED TO PLEAD AND PROVE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AS AN ADDITIONAL ELEMENT UNDER BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), AND ITS PROGENY ? . i

Docket Entries

2019-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-10-29
Waiver of right of respondent Pennsylvania to respond filed.
Main Document
2019-09-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 25, 2019)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisProof of ServicePetitionAppendix

Attorneys

Fernando Nunez
Fernando Nunez — Petitioner
Fernando Nunez — Petitioner
Pennsylvania
Nancy Winkelman — District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Nancy Winkelman — District Attorney's Office, Respondent