United States v. Peter S. Dimas and Ramon Roman

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing need for evidentiary hearing where record was inade- quate to decide Brady issue
• when “the defendants might have obtained the evidence themselves with reasonable diligence . . . , then the evidence was not ‘suppressed’ under Brady and they would have no claim”
• “Knowledge of Brady material may be imputed between prosecutors in the same office.”
• “[L]ater developments in the investigation, if any, are irrelevant because the question is whether the result would have changed if the prosecutors disclosed the evidence at the time [of trial], not whether the outcome would differ if the case were tried today.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).