United States v. Anthony Provenzano, A/K/A \Tony Pro\

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that suppressed evidence was not material under the specific request standard because the court was satisfied that the defense never would have used the evidence to impeach the witness but would have stayed with its original trial strategy of not cross-examining the witness
• noting that when sufficient evidence of conspiracy is presented, evidence sufficient to connect it to additional co-conspirators “need not be overwhelming” (quoting United States v. Head, 546 F.2d 6, 9-10 (2d Cir. 1976) (internal quotation marks omitted))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).