Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Greene, "Thus the term 'Brady violation' is sometimes used to refer to any breach of the broad obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence – that is, to any suppression of so-called 'Brady material' – although strictly speaking, there is never a real 'Brady violation' unless the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable ...
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 Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act, the Brady Bill or the Brady Handgun Bill, is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.
The discovery of Brady violations, in some cases, have even led to overturned convictions. Lead prosecutor called to stand Bradley also testified Friday, detailing her account of the incident and ...
The discovery of Brady violations, in some cases, have even led to overturned convictions. Defense attorneys, from right; Daniel Aaronson, Jamie Benjamin, and Raven Ramona Liberty speak with ...
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 ...
The discovery of Brady violations, in some cases, have even led to overturned convictions. “All we’re asking for is the deposition,” Aaronson said. “We’re not asking you, at this stage ...
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]