Nash v. Ohio

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Brady disclosure obligations can be met “in the time leading up to or even during trial”
• holding that “bad-faith destruction of exculpatory evidence” or “[djeliberate destruction of evidence with potential or apparent exculpatory value” is a due process violation
• recognizing that Brady disclosure obligations can be met “in the time leading up to or even during trial”
• observing that, in the case of “random and unauthorized” state actions, “no pre-deprivation hearing is required because it would be utterly impractical”
• observing that, in the case of \random and unauthorized\ state actions, \no pre-deprivation hearing is required because it would be utterly impractical\
• noting that evidence is potentially exculpatory if it might reveal fingerprints, although in that case, evidence was never tested

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).