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]
In some countries such as Germany, the prosecutor has to actively search for both exculpatory and inculpatory circumstances and evidence before filing of action. [3] 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 ...
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).
The prosecutor, or district attorney, is a lawyer who brings charges against a person, persons or corporate entity. It is the prosecutor's duty to explain to the court what crime was committed and to detail what evidence has been found which incriminates the accused. The prosecutor should not be confused with a plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel ...
The most common pieces of evidence used in evidence-based prosecution are: 911 call recordings and transcripts, Child witness statements, Neighbor witness statements, Medical records, Paramedic log sheets, Prior police reports, Restraining orders, Booking records, Letters from the suspect, Videotaped/Audio taped interviews with the victim, and Defendant's statements.
The special prosecutor overseeing Walker’s case and related ones, who was assigned in part due to Bradford’s conflicts of interest, said in a recent interview that a criminal investigation of ...
Three months later, Agurs' attorney filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that (1) Sewell had a criminal record that tended to prove he was a violent person, (2) that the prosecution had failed to disclose Sewell's record to Agurs' counsel, and (3) Sewell's record was admissible even if Agurs did not know about his history. [1]
For 16 years, a suburban New York prosecutor’s office insisted it had the right man in a notorious 1996 double killing. The office tried him five times, through a series of hung juries and ...