In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The
II. “Judge Pirtle should recuse himself from presiding in this case, because the State intends to call Judge Pirtle as a witness, concerning the qualifications and credibility of Dr. Ralph Erdmann, the pathologist who performed the autopsy in this capital murder case.” (http://www.goextranet.net/Seminars/Examples/Disqualify/State%27sRecuseJudge.htm)
At first, I was certain that it was not justice served in the case, but I had to attend for more information as in the article wasn’t all the details around this compelling case, and my opinion changed completely. I found the whole history in the New York Magazines. In this article, is seen the defendant guilty because he lied in their testimonies more than once, and when someone lies to us, we believe that he might do something wrong instead of that he might be nervous or afraid that everyone thinks something that it wasn’t true. Nevertheless, it was not enough evidence and non-witnesses that collaborate their history, and the jury was overwhelmed because the state took their freedom for four days, they only want to get home. On the other
In 1878 Congress made the defendant in any criminal case a witness at his own request. The Supreme Court stated that "the technical barriers excluding witnesses have been removed, till now it is generally, though perhaps not universally, true that no one is excluded therefrom unless the lips of the originally adverse party are closed by death, or unless someone of those peculiarly confidential relations, like that of husband and wife, forbids the breaking of silence."
“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).
of The Smoking Gun is the true account of a trial that proficiently exposed the unyielding
I, Michael Yates, being competent to testify, hereby declare on my personal knowledge as follows:
The 5th amendment declares No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person
Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit admitting that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had confirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment. The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence couldn’t have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals ' ruling was confirmed. A defendant 's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the various state and federal cases that interpret its obligation that the prosecution discloses material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.
While the presumption of innocence is not laid out explicitly in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled stating that “the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf” (Coffin v. United States). John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, should have known that his statements did not give the defendant his due presumption of innocence.
In Quinn v. United States(5) one of the dissenting judges expressed his wholehearted assent to the judicial amendment of the self-incrimination clause by striking the words "in any criminal case" therefrom, but he protested against the new rule laid down by the Court in that case, under which a contumacious witness must now be given a formula for claiming the privilege and after refusal to answer must be pleaded with a second time in order to get his "intent" not to answer set up. Justice Harlan, being new and uninitiated, couldn't approve the "new rule." He said:
Alito, delivered the final vote of 5-4, majority vote at expense for the case of Salinas V. Texas on June 17, 2013. The SCOTUS decided that Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination are not reprehensible to defendants who chose to only remain mute during questioning, or a portion of questioning. SCOTUS states, “Long-standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim this protection” (Justice Alito, Oyez). The SCOTUS later goes on to say, “the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that a criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves” (Justice Kennedy, Oyez). Therefore, If police officers read Salinas his rights at any point during conviction, questioning, or trial, there was no constitutional
If the witness denies making the inconsistent statement, the federal rules allow other evidence to be offered to prove it if:
At issue in this case is whether Mr. Love was fully aware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court must decide if he had the mental facilities to make an intelligent and informed decision in making a statement without an attorney present. If he did not “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” waive his Constitutional rights it could invalidate his confession. (State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 287 (Tenn. 2012))
Mr. Stringfellow’s recantation occurred within the same unbroken grand jury proceeding. According to the statute, recantation has to be made “ in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which the declaration is made.” 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d) (2012). Pg.6-8 of the grand jury’s transcript of the proceeding reflects the very essence of the standard set by the statute. However, in the government’s indictment against Mr. Stringfellow, they quite conveniently exclude the fact he did, in fact, clear up his previous false declarations in that continuous proceeding. Moreover, Mr. Stringfellow was never recalled to appear before another proceeding. Thus, quite possibly satisfying the grand jury’s inquires in regards to his father.