United States v. Shrake

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Act is constitutional, because it restricts who may control the images but not what the defendant may introduce at trial
• “The Supreme Court has held . . . that defendants are not constitutionally entitled to discovery It is accordingly hard to see how limits on discovery could be unconstitutional . . . (Citations omitted)
• Government violated 18 U.S.C. § 3501(m) when they provided a copy of child pornography to a civilian expert because while the government had contractual “control” over the images they no longer had “custody”
• the Walsh Act does not violate a defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights
• defendants not constitutionally entitled to discovery; federal statute limiting pretrial discovery constitutional
• “The Supreme Court has held . . . that defendants are not constitutionally entitled to discovery. It is accordingly hard to see how limits on discovery could be unconstitutional . . . .” (Citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).