Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-56 (Tenn. 2001). “[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness falls within the Brady disclosure requirement.” State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554, 593 (Tenn. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2019Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-56 (Tenn. 2001). “‘[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness’” falls within the Brady disclosure requirement. | 7 | 7 |
State of Tennessee v. Noura Jacksongreen2 sentences2020Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-56 (Tenn. 2001). “[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness falls within the Brady disclosure requirement.” State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554, 593 (Tenn. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2019State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554, 593 (Tenn. 2014) (quoting Johnson, 38 S.W.3d at 56-57 ). | 5 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Ellisongreen2 sentences2014Johnson, 38 S.W.3d at 56 -57 (quoting Commonwealth v. Ellison, 376 Mass. 1 , 379 N.E.2d 560, 571 (1978)). 2014Johnson, 38 S.W.3d at 56 -57 (quoting Commonwealth v. Ellison, 376 Mass. 1 , 379 N.E.2d 560, 571 (1978)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2014United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-57 (Tenn.2001); State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 389 (Tenn.1995). “-‘[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness’ ” falls within the Brad | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2024After that, we will address whether, based on the rule itself and the record before us, Mr. Thomas’ rights were violated because of the State’s failure to disclose, prior to trial, all inconsistent statements made by Mr. Hawkins at proffer sessions. i. The Brady Disclosure Rule The Brady disclosure rule stems from the landmark United States Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland. 373 U.S. 83 . 2024See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 3.8(d); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Bagley
red
2 sentences2014United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-57 (Tenn.2001); State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 389 (Tenn.1995). “-‘[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness’ ” falls within the Brad 2014United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-57 (Tenn.2001); State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 389 (Tenn.1995). “-‘[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness’ ” falls within the Brad | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Giglio v. United States
green
2 sentences2014United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-57 (Tenn.2001); State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 389 (Tenn.1995). “-‘[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness’ ” falls within the Brad 2014United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55-57 (Tenn.2001); State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 389 (Tenn.1995). “-‘[E]vidence which provides some significant aid to the defendant’s case, whether it furnishes corroboration of the defendant’s story, calls into question a material, although not indispensable, element of the prosecution’s version of the events, or challenges the credibility of a key prosecution witness’ ” falls within the Brad | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.