Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). [2] The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant. [3]
Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990–2006 [1]. Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties.
By the Act, Congress exercised its power to define the rules that should govern this particular area in the trial of criminal cases instead of leaving the matter of lawmaking to the courts. [6] The Act, and not the Supreme Court decision in the Jencks case, governs the production of statements of government witnesses in a federal criminal trial ...
Federal prosecutors indicated their potential evidence against former Kansas City, Kansas, police detective Roger Golubski consists of at least 36,000 pages of records.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States, the prosecution must turn over to a criminal defendant any significant evidence in its possession that suggests the defendant is not guilty (exculpatory evidence).
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). [5] The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant. [6]
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]
The counsel for the plaintiff (or the People) and the defendant attend the hearing to discuss pretrial matters pertaining to the case. The purpose of the hearing is to see if the rights of the defendant have been violated, and it is the duty of the judge to make sure that the oath of office is preserved under article 6 paragraph 2, supremacy ...