Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An exculpatory clause is generally only enforceable if it does not conflict with existing public policy. [2] The two other prerequisites for an exculpatory clause to be valid are that the contract must pertain to the involved parties' private affairs, and each of the involved parties must be free bargaining agents to the contract in question ...
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). [5] 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. [6]
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]
A subsequent remedial measure is an improvement, repair, or safety measure made after an injury has occurred. FRE 407 [dead link ] prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show defendant's (1) negligence; (2) culpable conduct; (3) a defect in defendant's product; (4) defect in the design of defendant's product; or (5) the need for a warning or instruction.
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).
A release from future negligence liability imposed as a condition for entry to a charitable hospital is invalid as a matter of public policy, under Cal. Civ Code §1668, which prohibits exempting a person from fraud, willful injury, or violation of law in contexts that affect the public interest. Court membership; Chief Justice: Phil S. Gibson
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
Once issues concerning the producibility of a requested statement have been raised, it is the duty of the court to conduct some sort of inquiry. This is a question for the court, and not the jury. [79] [80] A trial court's decision of what material must be produced under the Act is subject to review under the "clearly erroneous" standard. [81]