Herold v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that reversal for a Brady violation does not occur where the information was known to the defense
• emphasizing that Brady applies to discovery of information after trial, and holding that because the records were presented during the trial, there was no Brady violation
• defining \accomplice\ under a former version of § 2923.03(D) as a person who \at the very least ... [was] indicted for the crime of complicity\
• defining “accomplice” under a former version of § 2923.03(D) as a person who “at the very least ... [was] indicted for the crime of complicity”
• rejecting the exact same argument as not being *Page 7 premised upon his right to a jury trial
• finding there is no Brady violation when the alleged exculpatory records were presented during trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).