Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In criminal law, police perjury, sometimes euphemistically called "testilying", [1] [2] is the act of a police officer knowingly giving false testimony.It is typically used in a criminal trial to "make the case" against defendants believed by the police to be guilty when irregularities during the suspects' arrest or search threaten to result in their acquittal.
Once issues concerning the producibility of a requested statement have been raised, it is the duty of the court to conduct some sort of inquiry. This is a question for the court, and not the jury. [79] [80] A trial court's decision of what material must be produced under the Act is subject to review under the "clearly erroneous" standard. [81]
The United States Supreme Court held that the use of the spouse's recorded statement made during police interrogation violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant where the spouse, because of the state law marital privilege, did not testify at the trial and so was unavailable.
What did law enforcement testify on day three? Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Forensic Anthropologist Angi Christensen testified that, in mid-November 2022, she received 12 photographs ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
During Mr Murdaugh’s direct testimony, he shocked the court when he confessed for the first ... either 911 or law enforcement exactly when he touched the bodies either before or during the call ...
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]
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]