HUTSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a prior con- sistent statement that is not admissible under MIL. R. EVID. 801(d)(1)(B) might be admissible to “rehabilitate the in-court testimony of a witness”
• “Failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not hamless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial”
• “Failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undis- closed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.”
• “Failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undis- closed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.”
• CAAF appeared to state in dicta that a prior consistent statement (continued . . .) 10 FINCH—ARMY 20170501 F. Cases addressing the change to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B). Regardless of whether the change to Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B
• discussing “accused’s constitutional right to due process” in court-martial proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).