Brief filed: 12/03/2012
Documents
United States v. Quinn
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 11-1733
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.)
Argument(s)
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.)
Author(s)
Ellen C. Brotman and Erin C. Dougherty, Montgomery McCracken, Philadelphia, PA; Jenny Carroll, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, NJ.
