Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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).
Brought "Westminster" law to Maryland's Assembly (charges which Peter Hoffer and N. E. H. Hull write was "an example of colonial dislike for trained English Law") [2] Demanded exorbitant fees as a lawyer (implicit that he leveraged his judicial office to obtain them) [2] Simultaneously defended opposing parties in a lawsuit [2]
A Maryland court on Tuesday ordered a blogger known as Ziz who leads a cultlike group connected to six killings held without bail. The blogger, Jack LaSota, 34, of Berkeley, California, was ...
“The Maryland State Police is working in coordination with our federal law enforcement partners and the Office of the State’s Attorney in Allegany County as this investigation continues ...
In California, there is a carefully prescribed procedure governing such request, and making disclosure without an order is a crime. The statutory scheme was developed, in part, because law enforcement departments had developed a practice of purging their files concerning misconduct claims made against their officers. [20]
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements, rejecting an argument from gun-rights activists that the law violated the Second Amendment by making it too ...
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training. [1]
In December 2020, the Law Commission issued a report recommending the common law offence of misconduct in public office be abolished, and replaced with two new statutory offences; one of 'corruption in public office' and another of 'breach of duty in public office'. [13] As of 2024, the government has not issued a response to the report. [14]