Ad
related to: samples of interrogatories to defendant in criminal cases are required
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.
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 ...
Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. [1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.
The injured plaintiff might serve interrogatories on the defendant driver seeking information that would support the plaintiff's theory of the case. If the plaintiff is alleging that the defendant was speeding, the plaintiff might ask the defendant to state the speed of the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident.
In United States criminal procedure, the Federal government and certain states have reciprocal discovery laws that compel defendants to disclose some information to prosecutors before trial. [1] Within the federal court system, [ 2 ] this material is referred to as reverse Jencks Act material , after the United States Supreme Court case which ...
A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a California criminal case, such as a DUI case or a resisting arrest case, to access a law enforcement officer's personnel information when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. The information ...
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), is a 1968 United States Supreme Court ruling in which the Court held that a defendant was deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause if a confession by his codefendant was introduced in their joint trial, regardless of whether the jury received instructions only to consider it against the confessor.
This case was part of the legal history of applying the Federal Constitution's protections as enshrined in the Bill of Rights to cases arising in state courts. In Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969), it extended this protection to require speedy prosecutions of defendants even when held across state lines from the indicting court and in Dickey v.