City of New York v. Henriquez

Oral argument

• Argued

  26 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence, rather than granting a continuance, because exclusion was “the least severe sanction likely to remedy the prejudice and deter future wrongdoing on the part of the government”
• noting that a district court can generally assume counsel did not need additional time if they do not seek a continuance (citation omitted)
• identifying government bad faith and the degree of prejudice as factors to consider in determining a remedy for government discovery abuse
• affirming trial court’s exclusion of DNA evidence where the government’s untimely disclosure of the evidence “ma[de] it virtually impossible, absent a continuance, for defendants to evaluate and confront the evidence against them”
• “[A] finding of prejudice can be inferred from the district court’s comments.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).