United States v. Quinn

Brief on rehearing en banc for Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant. 

United States v. Quinn

Case Details
Key Topics in the Case

Documents

Prior Decision

Case below Crim. No. 2-09-cr-00720-002 (E.D. Pa. May 17, 2011).

Question Presented

“Whether government speculation that a witness might commit perjury can override the defendant’s constitutional right of access to evidence that could contribute to the establishment of reasonable doubt?” And “[w]hether the Court should clarify the definition of ‘exculpatory and essential’ evidence described in United States v. Smith to include evidence that could contribute substantially to raising a reasonable doubt?” (Br. at 2.)

The district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to compel the testimony of co-defendant, which if granted could have conferred judicial immunity for that testimony was reversible error. “Government speculation that a witness might commit perjury cannot override the defendant’s constitutional right of access to evidence that could contribute to the establishment of reasonable doubt.” (Br. at 3-11.) “In reaffirming the defendant’s right to compel witness testimony, the court should make clear that ‘exculpatory and essential’ evidence is evidence that could contribute substantially to raising a reasonable doubt.” (Br. at 11-15.)

Featured Products

Author(s)

Ellen C. Brotman and Erin C. Dougherty, Montgomery McCracken, Philadelphia, PA; Jenny Carroll, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, NJ.

Explore keywords to find information