ARMAND VILLASANA, JR., — v. WELDON WILHOIT, —

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the recovery of § 1983 damages for a Brady violation “requires proof that a law enforcement officer other than the prosecutor intended to deprive the defendant of a fair trial”
• holding the prosecutor did not violate Brady by failing to obtain and disclose crime lab expert’s lab notes and test documents
• observing that the documents at issue “had neither exculpatory nor impeachment value”
• observing that the documents at issue \had neither exculpatory nor impeachment value\
• observing that the documents at issue “had neither exculpatory nor impeachment value”
• observing that the documents at issue “had neither exculpatory nor impeachment value”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).