Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In order to ensure compliance with Brady, the United States Supreme Court repeatedly urged the "careful prosecutor" to favor disclosure over concealment. [16] Conformity with Brady is a continuing obligation of prosecutors. Some prosecuting attorney offices have adopted and created specialized procedure and bureaus to meet their burden.
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]
Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors in the United States have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested to do so. While the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory evidence and must disclose only the evidence in its possession, custody, or control, the prosecution's duty is to disclose all ...
[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. Anderson, [25] when Brady material is contained within Jencks Act material disclosure is generally timely if the government complies with the ...
Brady requires a criminal conviction to be reversed if the government withholds exculpatory (or impeachment [150]) material, within the government's possession, from the defendant, and there is a reasonable probability that, if such material had been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different ("materiality"). [151]
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 ).
States cannot sue for general economic damage due to violation of antitrust laws Cruz v. Beto: 405 U.S. 319 (1972) Free exercise of religion while in prison custody Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. 405 U.S. 394 (1972) Tax reporting for banks prohibited from doing insurance business Eisenstadt v. Baird: 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
The CBDR principle acknowledges that all states have shared obligation to address environmental destruction but denies equal responsibility of all states with regard to environmental protection. In the Earth Summit, states acknowledged disparity of economic development between developed and developing countries.