U.S. v. Nash

3 Citing cases

  1. McCann v. Mangialardi

    337 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2003)   Cited 221 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff's argument that the defendant violated his due process rights by deliberately creating false evidence to procure his conviction was "nothing more than a recast of his Fourth Amendment false arrest claim . . . in the guise of a substantive (rather than procedural) due process violation"

    The Court has yet to address, however, whether the Due Process Clause requires such disclosures outside the context of a trial. See United States v. Tadros, 310 F.3d 999, 1005 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that "[a] violation of the Brady rule occurs only when the government withholds evidence which, had it been disclosed, creates a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different"); United States v. Nash, 29 F.3d 1195, 1202-03 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1994) (refraining from addressing the issue of whether " Brady may be invoked to challenge the voluntariness of the plea where a defendant's (otherwise voluntary plea) was given without knowledge of . . . undisclosed exculpatory evidence"). A recent decision by the Supreme Court, however, indicates that such a claim might be viable in certain cases.

  2. U.S. v. Parks

    100 F.3d 1300 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 26 times
    In Parks, the prosecution gave the defendants copies of sixty-five hours of recorded conversations, which were in English but were hard to understand due to the slang and expressions used by the speakers, but provided transcripts of only the four hours it intended to use at trial.

    There is nothing but mere speculation that the sixty-one remaining hours of the Vienna intercept contain any Brady material, and under our cases, speculation is not enough to establish that the Government has hidden evidence. United States v. Nash, 29 F.3d 1195, 1202 (7th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). There is no requirement under Brady that the Government transcribe the entire sixty-five hours of the intercept, much of which contains irrelevant information.

  3. Daniels v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

    8:21-cv-2476-SDM-LSG (M.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2024)

    The alleged inconsistency about who reported Daniels to law enforcement “cannot be characterized as anything but minor.” United States v. Nash, 29 F.3d 1195, 1202 (7th Cir. 1994). Any “incremental impeachment value [Daniels] would receive from [this] minor inconsistenc[y] . . . does not raise a reasonable probability that, had the [report] been disclosed to [his] counsel, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.