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.
[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 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).
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 ...
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training. [1]
The Court held that Kyles should be granted a new trial. The Court noted Brady v.Maryland (1963), which held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEBOR, LEOBR, or LEOBoR) is a set of rights intended to protect American law enforcement personnel from unreasonable investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during the official performance of their duties, through procedural safeguards. [1]
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 ...