Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Peters, 406 So. 2d 189.

28 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Wilbert Thibodeaux La. 2024
where this Court made clear that “an in-camera inspection by the trial judge is a proper means of accommodating the secrecy of the grand jury and at the same time protecting defendant's constitutional rights of confrontation and due process.” Here, the defendant’s Motion for Production and In Came
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Hogg La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
Taylor, citing State v. 18 Peters, (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Timothy P. Roussel La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State v. Taylor 247 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Grand jury transcripts were first allowed to be given to a (La.
State v. Serigne 193 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Lloyd 161 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Poland, supra; State v. Ross, 2013-0175 (La.3/25/14), .
State v. Ross 144 So. 3d 932 La. 2014
State v. Galle 107 So. 3d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Specifically, that grand jury testimony is discoverable if it is favorable to the accused and is material to guilt or punishment under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Thomas 7 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Gutweiler 979 So. 2d 469 La. 2008
182 , 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005); Trosclair, 443 So.2d at 1103 ; (La.
State v. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
art. 434; -91 (La.1981).
State v. Higgins 821 So. 2d 1281 La. 2002
If the trial court expresses that the grand jury transcripts contain evidence favorable to the accused which is material to guilt or innocence under Brady and/or Giglio
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
ss [whose] testimony went directly to the issue of guilt;" if on remand material inconsistencies carrying impeachment value are found, new trial must be granted); -1242 (La.1982) (error to deny defense access to police radio logs; on remand judge will decide if any are materially inconsistent with officer's account and, if so, to order retrial); -91 (La.1981)(for good cause, trial court will conduct an in camera inspection of the grand jury testimony of the state's key witness in capital trial f
State v. Poland 782 So. 2d 556 La. 2001
State v. Williams 769 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Poland 750 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
In Re Grand Jury 737 So. 2d 1 La. 1999
State v. Small 693 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Evans 669 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Grubbs 644 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Barker 628 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Martin 562 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
which directs the trial judge, under certain circumstances, to make an in camera inspection.
State v. Evans 512 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Kyzar 509 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
The court’s action noted that, if the motion for disclosure of the statements was so specific that the trial court believed legitimate Brady material was involved, (La.
State v. Trosclair 443 So. 2d 1098 La. 1983
State v. Smith 437 So. 2d 252 La. 1983
763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)
State v. Willis 438 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
In the case of State v. Peters, La., , this court allowed an inspection in camera, of the grand jury testimony of a state witness who admitted to defense counsel that she had perjured herself before the grand jury.
State v. Ates 418 So. 2d 1326 La. 1982
In the case of State v. Peters, La., , this court allowed an inspection in camera, of the grand jury testimony of a state witness who admitted to defense counsel that she had perjured herself before the grand jury.