Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
When there is insufficient supporting evidence to determine whether it is true or false, an accusation is described as "unsubstantiated" or "unfounded". Accusations that are determined to be false based on corroborating evidence can be divided into three categories: [2] A completely false allegation, in that the alleged events did not occur.
Tampering with evidence is closely related to the legal issue of spoliation of evidence, which is usually the civil law or due process version of the same concept (but may itself be a crime). Tampering with evidence is also closely related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice , and these two kinds of crimes are often ...
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of ...
In strict cases, when an illegal action is used by the police or the prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed).
The exception in some instances allows for the introduction of evidence gathered during illegal searches, so long as a judge approved a search warrant, even if the warrant shouldn’t have been ...
However, the officer's actions must still not violate "clearly established law," or this protection is void. This includes executing an arrest warrant against the wrong person. False statements by public servants to justify or cover up an illegal arrest are another violation of federal law. [8] An example of this doctrine being tested is Sorrell v.
But U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper reduced the sentence to six years, the first time a Jan. 6 defendant was resentenced under the high court's ruling on obstruction.
It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In this respect, affirmative defenses differ from ordinary defenses [claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)], which the prosecution has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable ...