Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence known only to the police. That is, the prosecutor has a duty to reach out to the police and establish regular procedures by which the police inform the prosecutor's office of anything that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant. [6]
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 information known to any member of its team, e.g., police, investigators, crime labs, et cetera. In Brady v.
For example, disclosing that a police department has documents about a current investigation into a criminal conspiracy, even if the content of the documents is not disclosed, would make it public that an investigation is happening; in response, suspects could destroy evidence or even murder those who they feel may testify against them.
[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 ...
Individuals in Australia can obtain a national criminal history to check themselves, and certain organisations can apply for one on their behalf. A person may be required to undergo a criminal record check for a variety of reasons, including employment screening, volunteer work, preparing for a court appearance, visa applications, firearms licensing, or to satisfy a statutory requirement.
Following a section of introductory text, the act outlines the relevance of its content in the first section to persons charged with a summary offence, indictable offence or one that is triable either way, as well as the criminal investigation into such an offence and as to whether such a person should be charged with the offence or found guilty of it once charged. [2]
Bustamonte, 1973), (2) when the information has been disclosed to a third party (United States v. Miller, 1976), and (3) when the information is in plain view of an officer (Horton v. California, 1990)". [22] There is a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of a cellphone. [23]
Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement. The nine exemptions are as follows: Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.