witness defense in Delaware

2019Super. 2017) 253 See id. at *4 (“Jencks, which has been codified as Superior Court Criminal Rule 26.2, requires the State, upon request, to produce statements of a witness to the defense prior to the cross- examination of that witness.” (citing Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957))). 254 Fowler v. State, 194 A.3d 16, 27 (Del. 2018). 255 State v. Fowler, 2017 WL 4381384 , at *1 (Del.

2017The State acknowledged that did not meet its Jencks obligations in that it “inadvertently failed to provide certain interviews of witnesses . .prior to their testimony.”45 Both Fowler and the Court accept this explanation Jencks, which has been codified as Superior Court Criminal Rule 26.2, requires the State, upon request, to produce statements of a witness to the defense prior to the cross-examination of that witness46 Transcripts of interviews of Brett Chatman, Jonathan Duarte, Emily Godek and Lance Walstrum were not provided to the defendant during trial or on direct appeal, but were provi

2025In Webb, the United States Supreme Court found that the “the judge’s threatening remarks, directed only at the single witness for the defense, effectively drove that witness off the stand, and thus deprived the petitioner of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.”49 Brisco’s case, 45 Opening Br. at 38. 46 Opinion at *12. 47 Id. 48 409 U.S. 95 (1972). 49 Id. at 98 . 19 however, differs substantially from Webb.

2025In Webb, the United States Supreme Court found that the “the judge’s threatening remarks, directed only at the single witness for the defense, effectively drove that witness off the stand, and thus deprived the petitioner of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.”49 Brisco’s case, 45 Opening Br. at 38. 46 Opinion at *12. 47 Id. 48 409 U.S. 95 (1972). 49 Id. at 98 . 19 however, differs substantially from Webb.

2016Defendant asserts that trial counsel failed to visit him to discuss trial strategy, trial counsel did not subpoena an alibi Witness defendant wanted to be present at trial, and trial counsel failed to obtain videotape from the Wal-Mart Store to help with his defense Defendant does not provide any details as to how the trial strategy he wanted to discuss with trial counsel would have been different and more successful, who the witnesses were, what the alibi would have been, and what the Wal-Mart videotape would have shown These vague, conclusory allegations Which are unsupported with specific f

2015Answering Br. 6 n.4. 77 Id. at 4. 78 Id. at 5–6. 79 Id. at 6. 18 credibility.80 The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant’s discovery responses confirm there are no third-party witness in India who have material information and are outside of the Defendant’s control.81 That is, the Defendant identified only twelve individuals in response to an interrogatory asking it to identify any “person it may call as a witness at a hearing or trial in this case, by deposition, affidavit or any other means.”82 Of those twelve, according to the Plaintiff, four are employees of “the Defendant.”83 The record ap

1995In Pinkett , the Supreme Court cited Fitzpatrick v. Holiday Inns, Inc., D.C.E.D.Pa., 507 F.Supp. 979 (1981), where plaintiff wanted to call as a trial witness a defense “IME” physician.

1992Johnson contends that his right to due process was denied when the prosecuting attorney failed to disclose favorable and material information to Johnson regarding the prior criminal record of a State’s witness in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

1992Johnson contends that his right to due process was denied when the prosecuting attorney failed to disclose favorable and material information to Johnson regarding the prior criminal record of a State’s witness in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

1952In support of his first contention the defendant relies upon the case of State v. Barr, decided by this Court in 1909 and reported in 7 Penn. 340 , 79 A. 730 .

1952In support of his first contention the defendant relies upon the case of State v. Barr, decided by this Court in 1909 and reported in 7 Penn. 340 , 79 A. 730 .