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).
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]
Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice. [4] The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). [5]
Rule 605. Judge's Competency as a Witness; Rule 606. Juror's Competency as a Witness. Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness; Rule 608. A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness; Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction; Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions; Rule 611. Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and ...
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland (in case citations, D. Md.) is the federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Maryland.Appeals from the District of Maryland are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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]
In two of those cases -- a federal case accusing Trump of attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 election and a New York state prosecution charging him with concealing hush money payments ...