Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2016/smith-v-almada-hrdc-amicus-brief-9th-circuit-police-hiding-exculaptory-evidence-2010/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:49:46+00:00

Document:
owns 10% or more of their stock.
enforcement and corrections officers by coordinating and assisting civil rights lawyers.
evidence by police officers or detectives.
subscribers in all fifty states and abroad and eight times as many readers.
TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
42 U.S.C. § 1983, where he was never convicted of the criminal charges against him.
reconsider this significant constitutional issue.
police officers to disclose exculpatory evidence to prosecutors.
requirement upon the Government’s interests.” Mathews, 536 U.S. at 631.
significant factor at trial). Ake in turn relied on Mathews. 470 U.S. at 77.
furnish exculpatory evidence is a procedural due process violation); McCann v.
federal claim under Section 1983).
BALANCING TEST OF MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE.
substitute procedural requirement would entail.
not apply at the plea stage. 536 U.S. at 634 (Thomas, J., concurring).
government has “exculpatory evidence of actual innocence.” 337 F.3d at 787.
doctrine of substantive due process and limited Brady to protecting only a fair trial.
plaintiff had suffered no injury, ignoring his lengthy pre-trial incarceration.
under the Mathews v. Eldridge factors.
exculpatory evidence as a procedural due process right.
prolonged detention may be more serious than the interference occasioned by arrest.
subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends.”).
hung jury, as noted by Judge Nelson in her dissent from the panel’s decision.
liability was found despite the absence of a criminal conviction. Thus in Sanders v.
“probable value . . . of additional or substitute procedural safeguards.” Mathews v.
subject to liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
does not attempt to defend such behavior in this court.
suppression and concealment of exonerating evidence caused a wrongful conviction.
have been different.” Id. at 461 (emphases added).
from the deprivation of protected liberty interests without procedural due process.
for any errors in judgment.
prosecution of a civil-rights plaintiff.
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

References: § 1983
 v.

 V. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.