259 F. Supp. 2d 502 - Bright v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The reference that is related to Bright’s murder conviction is not exempt from disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(C), (D). It relates to the possibility of Bright’s innocence and should have at the least been disclosed to him prior to his trial under the clear instruction of the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The reference itself states: The source further advised that DANIEL BRIGHT, aka “Poonie”, is in jail for the murder committed by TRACEY DAVIS. The source stated that he/she has heard DAVIS bragging about doing the murder and how he is confident that BRIGHT will be able to beat the charge because they don’t have enough evidence against him. Quite obviously, disclosure of this ma- terial does not necessarily endanger the identity of the FBI source; given the patent seriousness of the statement, Blight may have been wrongfully convicted of murder even though his prior criminal history hardly makes him a candidate for citizen of the year. The failure by law enforcement agencies to disclose the statement before his murder trial raises the stakes of the public interest and pays little currency to any claim of private interest. Whether Bright is or is not guilty, the failure of law enforcement to act as it was constitutionally obliged to do cannot be tolerated in a society that makes a fair and impartial trial a cornerstone of our liberty from government misconduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 275 F. Supp. 2d 49 - United States v. Sampson