Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). [2] The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant. [3]
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).
Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice. [4] The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v.
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement. [4] There is no requirement that the prior consistent statement have been made under oath at a prior trial or hearing. A form of prior consistent statement excepted from this rule is that of prior identification by the witness of another person in a lineup. [citation needed]
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]
For example, the Clause prevents a jurisdiction from precluding defendants from calling their codefendants as witnesses. [42] Similarly, the Clause prevents the government from deporting a witness whose testimony would have been both material and favorable to the defense. [43] The right does not pre-empt reasonable procedural rules.
Hughes Anderson Bagley was indicted on 15 counts of violating federal narcotic and firearm statutes in the Western District of Washington in October 1977. In preparation for trial, to be held in December, Bagley's counsel filed a discovery motion that requested information on the witnesses the prosecution intended to call, their criminal records, and any promises made to them in exchange for ...
Rule 26.2 extends the provisions of the Jencks Act by providing that statements subject to production at trial are not only those of prosecution witnesses, but those of any witness other than the defendant. The Rule does not alter the Jencks Act schedule for production of statements, nor does it relieve a defendant seeking production of Jencks ...