Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 30 Ky. L.J. 360 (1942). Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 7 Mo. L. Rev. 263 (1942).
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).
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 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]
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from prosecution in his federal 2020 election interference case could push a trial close to ...
Irrespective of the Pre-Trial Chamber's order, the domestic prosecution in Côte d'Ivoire of Gbagbo continued, and on 10 March 2015 a court sentenced her to 20 years' imprisonment for "undermining state security, disturbing public order and organising armed gangs" during the post-election violence. [165]
Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to reject the expedited timeline and allow the appeals court to consider the case first. [29] [30] On December 22, the Supreme Court denied the special counsel's request, leaving the case to the appeals court. [31] On January 9, 2024, the D.C. Court of Appeals heard arguments in the immunity dispute.
The Court found an "inflexible presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness" to be inappropriate in the pretrial setting, where a prosecutor's case against a defendant may not yet have "crystallized." [11] Following the Court's ruling, lower federal courts have generally held a presumption of vindictiveness to be inapplicable in a pretrial setting.