context: Within the context of a different legal issue, our Supreme Court declined to impose a duty on law enforcement officials to consent to defense interviews.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 266 F.Supp. 930, 935-36
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that medical examiner's order to toxicologist not to speak with accused, his counsel or experts, violated defendant's constitutional rights
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Coppolino v. Helpern, 266 F.Supp. 930, 935-36 (S.D.N.Y.1967) (holding that medical examiner’s order to toxicologist not to speak with accused, his counsel or experts, violated defendant’s constitutional rights); but see Fenenbock, supra, 681 F.3d at 970-71, 974 (finding no violation of constitutional rights when an agency unrelated to the prosecution, acting in the interest of a witness who was a minor, denied pretrial access to eight defendants).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 681 F.3d 970, 970-71, 974
citation_b.parenthetical: finding no violation of constitutional rights when an agency unrelated to the prosecution, acting in the interest of a witness who was a minor, denied pretrial access to eight defendants
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Coppolino v. Helpern, 266 F.Supp. 930, 935-36 (S.D.N.Y.1967) (holding that medical examiner’s order to toxicologist not to speak with accused, his counsel or experts, violated defendant’s constitutional rights); but see Fenenbock, supra, 681 F.3d at 970-71, 974 (finding no violation of constitutional rights when an agency unrelated to the prosecution, acting in the interest of a witness who was a minor, denied pretrial access to eight defendants).