Are Brady Violations Epidemic?

Are Brady Violations Epidemic?

Judge Alex Kozinski (Wikipedia here), of the Ninth Circuit, has a blistering dissent to the denial of rehearing en banc in an alleged Brady violation case. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), here, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54 (1972), here, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]. The denial of rehearing en banc, with Judge Kozinski's dissent, is United States v. Olsen, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24500 (9th Cir. 2013), here, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]. The original panel opinion in the case is United States v. Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2013), here, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers].


In broad sweep, perhaps the key evidence of guilt were spiked allergy pills that the prosecutor urged were spiked by the defendant. But, the defendant alleged, the pills had been spiked by the state forensic investigator, one Melnifoff. Well before the trial, that investigator was under investigation because of possibly intentional errors in other cases. Although the defense knew of the investigation, the prosecutor down-played its significance and relevance to the case, and apparently did not take the trouble to learn the scope of the investigation which, by trial, had been completed and cast doubt on the investigator's diligence and credibility in other cases. Judge Kozinski read the record as:

View Jack Townsend's opinion in its entirety on the Federal Tax Crimes blog site.

For additional insight, explore Tax Crimes, authored by Jack Townsend and available at the LexisNexis® Store

...

Discover the features and benefits of the LexisNexis® Tax Center

For quality Tax & Accounting research resources, visit the LexisNexis® Store

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site