Answer:
Hsu was indicted for violating the Economic Espio- nage Act by conspiring to steal corporate trade secrets for an anti-cancer drug. The defense requested a copy of the trade secret documents. The government contended that the defense did not need access to the documents except under supervision of the judge. The defense maintained a right of full access to the documents so the defense of impossibil- ity could be established, meaning Hsu could not steal trade secrets that did not exist. District court agreed with the defense; government appealed. Must the defendant be allowed full access to trade secrets that are a key part of a case? [U.S. v. Hsu, 155 F. 3d 189, 3rd Cir. (1998)]
Explanation:
Answer:
concurring
Explanation:
a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different or additional reasons as the basis for their decision.
