Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Some state systems have expansively defined Brady material to include many other items, including for example any documents which might reflect negatively on a witness's credibility. [ 12 ] Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops."
Prior consistent statements and prior inconsistent statements, in the law of evidence, occur where a witness, testifying at trial, makes a statement that is either consistent or inconsistent, respectively, with a previous statement given at an earlier time such as during a discovery, interview, or interrogation.
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts .
The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Florida police officers and any other crime victims can’t shield their identity behind Marsy’s Law, the 2018 constitutional amendment meant to ...
In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, character evidence is inadmissible in civil suits when being used as circumstantial evidence to prove that a person acted in conformity with their character; it is considered to be an unfair basis from which to attempt to prove that an individual behaved in a particular way on a particular occasion. [2]
[13] However, some courts continue to apply the doctrine to discredit witnesses that have previously offered false testimony. [14] In 2013, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that in immigration cases, a court may "use an adverse credibility finding on one claim to support an adverse finding on another ...
The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion November 30 saying Marsy's Law does not grant police officers anonymity when they use deadly force. The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion November ...
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]