|
|
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996)
JUSTICE GINSBURG, concurring.
I do not understand the Court to have created a "major limitation" on the scope of discovery available under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. See post at 475 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As I see it, the Court has decided a precise issue: whether the phrase "defendant’s defense," as used in Rule 16(a)(1)(C), encompasses allegations of selective prosecution. I agree with the Court, for reasons the opinion states, that subsection (a)(1)(C) does not apply to selective prosecution claims. The Court was not called upon to decide here whether Rule 16(a)(1)(C) applies in any other context, for example, to affirmative defenses unrelated to the merits. With the caveat that I do not read today’s opinion as precedent foreclosing issues not tendered for review, I join the Court’s opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: Ginsburg, "Ginsburg, J., Concurring," United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) in 517 U.S. 456 Original Sources, accessed June 3, 2023, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LKQ3YHSZEIF5BHH.
MLA: Ginsburg. "Ginsburg, J., Concurring." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), in 517 U.S. 456, Original Sources. 3 Jun. 2023. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LKQ3YHSZEIF5BHH.
Harvard: Ginsburg, 'Ginsburg, J., Concurring' in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). cited in 1996, 517 U.S. 456. Original Sources, retrieved 3 June 2023, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LKQ3YHSZEIF5BHH.
|