Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In jurisprudence, prosecutorial misconduct or prosecutorial overreach is "an illegal act or failing to act, on the part of a prosecutor, especially an attempt to sway the jury to wrongly convict a defendant or to impose a harsher than appropriate punishment." [1] It is similar to selective prosecution. Prosecutors are bound by a set of rules ...
[4] Therefore, the defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary", [4] which demonstrates "the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'" [5] Selective prosecution has been raised as a possible defense in the election obstruction case of Donald Trump. [6]
Justice Stevens's dissent focused on the argument that a prosecutor's failure to present substantially-exculpatory evidence is a form of prosecutorial misconduct, but that nevertheless, the prosecutor need not "ferret out and present all evidence that could be used at trial to create a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt." [2]
The doctrine makes it nearly impossible for victims of prosecutorial misconduct to get recourse. Sotomayor Is Right: The Supreme Court Should Reevaluate Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors Skip to ...
The Court found an "inflexible presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness" to be inappropriate in the pretrial setting, where a prosecutor's case against a defendant may not yet have "crystallized." [11] Following the Court's ruling, lower federal courts have generally held a presumption of vindictiveness to be inapplicable in a pretrial setting.
Jan. 25—CONCORD — A federal judge in New Hampshire has dismissed one criminal case, and a high-profile white-collar case hangs in the balance over questions about misconduct by a top federal ...
The issue stemmed from a prosecutor showing up while a defense investigator was interviewing a key witness. Judge denies misconduct charge, refuses to remove state prosecutor from 2020 murder case ...
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]