Skip navigation

Singh v. Prunty, No. 96-56726 (9th Cir.) (142 F.3d 1157) (April 27, 1998) (Judge Donald P. Lay)

Case held that the knowing and deliberate suppression of the evidence of benefits received by an informant violated the Brady rule and constituted severe prejudice that warranted granting a writ of habeas corpus.

This is one of those classic Brady-rule violation cases which shows the extremes to which some prosecutors ...

 

Full article and associated cases available to subscribers.

As a digital subscriber to Punch and Jurists, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login