Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Some state systems have expansively defined Brady material to include many other items, including for example any documents which might reflect negatively on a witness's credibility. [ 12 ] Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops."
[citation needed] The examiner must also provide the witness with the opportunity to adopt or reject the previous statement. [1] In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, prior inconsistent statements may not be introduced to prove the truth of the prior statement itself, as this constitutes hearsay, but only to impeach the credibility of the witness.
The Williams Rule is based on the holding in the Florida state case of Williams v. State [1] in which relevant evidence of collateral crimes is admissible at jury trial when it does not go to prove the "bad character" or "criminal propensity" of the defendant but is used to show motive, intent, knowledge, modus operandi, or lack of mistake.
Although Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough (pictured) rejected a categorical application of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus for English courts in the year 1809, the doctrine survives in some American jurisdictions. [1] Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin [2] maxim [3] meaning "false in one thing, false in everything". [4]
Composite drawings made from photographs are not producible. Photographs, if they relate to a witness' statement must be produced. [43] [44] Notes taken by a prosecutor or a law enforcement officer pertaining to an interview with a potential government witness may be subject to production under the Jencks Act if the witness testifies at trial ...
The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion November 30 saying Marsy's Law does not grant police officers anonymity when they use deadly force.
A new law going into effect on Jan. 1 requires people to move back 25 feet if first responders, including law enforcement, verbally warn them to, while the responder is performing a legal duty.
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]