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 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 ).
FTC may act against a company’s “unfair” business practices even though the practice is not an antitrust violation Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California: 405 U.S. 251 (1972) 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
Due diligence is the investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is normally expected to take before entering into an agreement or contract with another party or an act with a certain standard of care. Due diligence can be a legal obligation, but the term more
In every contract there is an implied covenant that neither party shall do anything, which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party, to receive the fruits of the contract. In other words, every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.