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). [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]
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
In United States v. Williams (1992), where the Court rejected a rule that would have required "substantial exculpatory evidence" to be presented to the grand jury, the defendant did not even argue a Fifth Amendment violation. [27] The lack of a grand jury does not deprive the court of jurisdiction, and the defendant may waive the grand jury ...
Two 23-year-old Southern California men have been indicted on charges of defrauding investors out of more than $22 million in cryptocurrency, according to authorities.
In some instances however, the statute may be overridden by an accused's constitutional right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence. [9] [10] The Jencks Act governs production of statements and reports of prosecution witnesses during federal criminal trials.
The indictment came months after the civil settlement. The grand jury says Falaschi had several of his employees install a valve mechanism in the canal — submerged below the water line — near ...
The indictment does not identify U.S. Company-1 as Tenet Media. Still, some right-wing influencers featured on the channel have confirmed that Tenet is the company being referred to in court ...
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]