# Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · August 23, 2016 · 834 F.3d 263

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835648

## Case

- **Full name:** James A. DENNIS v. SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Greene; Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview; District Attorney of Philadelphia County, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** August 23, 2016
- **Citations:** 834 F.3d 263; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15434; 2016 WL 4440925
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ambro
- **Judges:** McKee, Ambro, Fuentes, Smith, Fisher, Chagares, Jordan, Hardiman, Greenaway, Vanaskie, Shwartz, Krause, Rendell
- **Cited by:** 276 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Commonwealth v. Natividad, R., Aplt., 200 A.3d 11 (2019).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835648

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that time-stamped receipt calling into question eyewitness’s testimony that the petitioner was in the vicinity of. the crime scene at the time' of the crime was material because it “would have necessarir ly bolstered [the petitioner’s] alibi defense narrative and ‘put …
- holding that time- stamped receipt calling into question eyewitness’s testimony that the petitioner was in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the crime was material because it “would have necessarily bolstered [the petitioner’s] alibi defense narrative and ‘put the…
- holding that it was clearly established federal law that inadmissible evidence could be the basis for a Brady16 violation, despite the fact that a minority of Circuit courts had held that only admissible evidence could be the basis for such a violation
- holding that multiple failures of the Commonwealth to turn over discovery information under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), constituted error, the cumulative effect of which "command[ed]" a new trial
- holding the prosecution’s “duty to disclose under Brady is absolute—it does not depend on defense counsel’s actions” and the defense is “entitled to presume that prosecutors have ‘discharged their official duties.’”

## Opinion text

AMBRO, Circuit Judge,
joins in this concurring opinion.
APPENDIX: Eyewitness Identifications
*345 Table 1 — Photo Array Identifications
[[Image here]]
*346 Table 2 — Lineup Identifications
[[Image here]]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835648. Public record. Not legal advice.