United States v. Venkata

How courts have described this case

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

• conflicting testimony as to suspect's identity \was a matter to be pursued at trial and one for the jury to resolve\
• police had “very good justification for resorting to . . . showup procedure” where crime involved use of firearm not recovered at scene
• “defense counsel offered only speculation in claiming that the lost [video] footage would have been exculpatory” where two of three video recordings preserved
• \defense counsel offered only speculation in claiming that the lost [video] footage would have been exculpatory\ where two of three video recordings preserved
• no prejudice from lost video evidence where defendant was allowed to cross-examine testifying police officers to exploit lost evidence
• showup identification not rendered unnecessarily suggestive where there were at least six uniformed police officers in area of showup as well as multiple police cruisers; suspects were placed in line and handcuffed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).