No. 24-6455
Ernest Murphy v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-violation constitutional-precedent evidence-suppression favorable-evidence judicial-interpretation second-circuit
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2025-03-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Second Circuit Court invented an entirely new definition of Brady's 'favorable' definition that is incongruent with well-established Constitutional precedents from this Court, and further failed to consider the collective impact of the suppressed evidence?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Whether the Second Circuit Court invented an entirely new definition of Brady's “favorable ” definition that is incongruent with well-established Constitutional precedents from this Court, and further failed to consider the collective impact of the suppressed evidence? i cr> r? COO COsg
Docket Entries
2025-03-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/7/2025.
2025-02-14
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-02-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-01-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 5, 2025)
Attorneys
United States
Sarah M. Harris — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. Harris — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent