Skip to main content

Rose v. State

Citations

  • 542 A.2d 1196
  • 1988 Del. LEXIS 204

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding a delay in disclosure does not amount to suppression unless the delay somehow prejudiced defendant
  • “[w]hen a defendant is confronted with delayed disclosure of Brady material, reversal will be granted only if the defendant was denied the opportunity to use the material”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Christie, Walsh, Holland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.