No. 24-5863

Andres C. v. Connecticut

Lower Court: Connecticut
Docketed: 2024-10-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-material constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidence-review prosecutorial-discretion
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2024-11-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether prosecutors may delegate Brady material review to a nonlawyer staff member or must personally review potential exculpatory evidence

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, when potential Brady material (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), is discovered during a criminal trial—and that material consists of the complaining witness’ handwritten journals that describe the alleged criminal acts— must that material be reviewed by the trial prosecutors, or at least by some prosecutor, or may prosecutors delegate the task of conducting the Brady review to a nonlawyer on the prosecutors’ staff. i

Docket Entries

2024-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2024-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2024.
2024-11-01
Waiver of right of respondent Connecticut to respond filed.
2024-10-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 29, 2024)

Attorneys

Andres C.
Richard EmanuelLaw Offices of Richard Emanuel, Petitioner
Connecticut
Timothy F. CostelloOffice of the Chief State's Attorney - Appellate, Respondent