Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In some cases, the production of documents must be made at a time prior to that required by the Jencks Act. [21] [22] [23] The Brady rule may require the prosecutor to disclose grand jury testimony prior to trial, if the information is exculpatory, as well as other Brady material. [24] In United States v.
However, if there were a number of other witnesses against the losing party, the appellate court may rule that this mistake was of no consequence and that even if the evidence had been excluded, the losing party would have lost.
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]
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. [1] In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.
These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. [1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.
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 vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks. [citation needed] The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database. However, Printz v. United States was an important ruling in support of States' rights and the New ...