P. v. Ayala CA5
Appellant Raul Ayala contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial on the grounds the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady) by failing to disclose two potential witnesses. We disagree and affirm.

Comments on P. v. Ayala CA5

Post Reply

Search thread for Go ►

Download thread as textHTMLGo ►

• 0/5
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment: Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

Submit Advanced