Suspension To Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

During the 1920s the American people led themselves to their economic demise. In America, the Great Depression occurred during the 1930s after the crash of the stock market. “The Roaring Twenties”, which occurred before the Great Depression, was a time when the assembly line created more jobs and money to be used. This new economic prosperity, brought about the stock market, in which hundreds of Americans put in their money in hopes of their company making profits. The Great Depression was caused by stockholders using more money then they could pay back, workers using the non-shameful credit to buy products, which led Americans into debt, and the lack of demand, when there was an increase in supplies.

Under Brady v. Maryland, for a prosecutor to withhold exculpatory evidence violates the due process rights of the defendant as well as “casting the prosecutor in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice.”(more later on how that plays with 3.8)1 It is not the case that the prosecutor has to wait for the defendant to ask for the exculpatory evidence, but is required to hand it over.2 As for the timing for when that has to handed over Model Rule 3.8 only requires “timely disclosure,” and we have seen how that is open to interpretation.3 This disclosure of exculpatory evidence, is not just limited to what a prosecutor intends to directly admit at trial, but also what promises and induces that were

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution violated the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause when it failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, even if the individual prosecutors are unaware of the undisclosed information.

The Due Process Model requires that defendants have the right to call their own witnesses, mount their own evidence, and present

This case brief was written in regards to Miranda v. Arizona, in which The Supreme Court of the United States considered the facts of four separate cases, all of which involved incriminating evidence obtained during official police interrogations. In all four cases Government officials did not advise the individuals, who were under custodial detention, of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. Individuals who are being questioned under a custodial police interrogation are protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment .The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "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

Even after a defendant has been convicted, prosecutors have an ethical, sometimes legal, duty to preserve a copy of discovery material as well as physical evidence. The prosecutor has an ethical duty to make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of their right to have an attorney present in court. They also have an ethical, legal and constitutional duty to disclose most of the evidence they possess to the defendant once the defendant has been charged with a crime. However, the individual rights of the defendant must be upheld, even if this means that the prosecutor does not obtain a conviction.

"Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused-- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant 's guilt, that would reduce a defendant 's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness” (Cornell University Law School, 2015).

Prosecutors often prefer this procedure because grand juries keep the case in secret. When an information is filed by prosecutors, it is required that they convince a judge in preliminary hearing that the evidence obtained is liable and sufficient to guarantee a conviction. In contrast, this is not presented

This type of prosecution deals with the Due Process Clause. This principle came about during the Supreme Court case Blackledge v Perry (1974). The case dealt with Perry being charged with a misdemeanor the beginning of his trial, but he beat the charges. The prosecutor then decided to charge him with a felony, in which, he plead guilty. The result of the case stated that “the Due Process Clause imposes as a limited prohibition on prosecutorial use of charging prerogative to the extent that prerogative is used to penalize the exercise of legal rights” (Whitebread & Slobogin, 2008,p605). Although this was one Supreme Court decision, the court decided that they needed another decision in order to ensure that prosecutors were not being vindictive. The case North Carolina v Pearce (1969) decision stated that “vindictiveness against a defendant for having successful attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial” (Whitebread & Slobogin, 2008,

The United States Constitution is the framework of our legal system. It provides its citizens undeniable rights, and federal and state substantive and procedural laws must be obeyed while not conflicting with the citizens’ rights in the Constitution. Among these rights are the 5th and 6th amendments. The 5th amendment states that a person has the right to a grand jury and cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The 5th amendment further states that person cannot be the witness of his/her own crime (U.S. Const. Amend. V). The 6th amendment is related to the rights of criminal defendants. The 6th amendment guarantees criminal defendants with the right to a public trial, the right to a lawyer, and the right to know the charges and evidence against them (U.S. Const. Amend. VI). The case, Miranda v. Arizona (1996), changed the course of history by determining appropriate police conduct. This appropriate police conduct has been set as the norm, which is still being used today. This process is referred to as reading the arrested their Miranda rights. This research paper examines the facts and significance of the Miranda v. Arizona case and how it affected the Supreme Court, law enforcement, and judicial system.

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

The Supreme Court founded their decision on the Fifth Amendment rather than the Sixth Amendment due to the intimidating nature of the custodial interrogation by law enforcement. No admission could be permissible under the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had relinquished their rights. The person in custody must, prior to being questioned be clearly informed of their right to remain silent and that whatever they say will be held against them in court. They must be informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney and that

In order to rightfully arrest a suspect in a crime or to appropriately try a criminal case in court, evidence must be gathered in order to prove the commission of a crime. There are legal standards which dictate how evidence is gathered and used in order to prove a person is guilty or convict him or her of an actual criminal offense. The Exclusionary Rule was established under constitutional law for basically two essential purposes. One reason was to prevent the unlawful gathering of evidence by law enforcement against a person. Secondly, the rule was also established so a person could not be compelled to incriminate themselves. This rule was initiated in order to protect guaranteed constitutional rights and to ensure that law enforcement did not overstep their authority in the process of collecting evidence. The rule also extends to ensure that a person does not participate in self-incrimination.

At the time that these youngmen were tried, DC was unsettled with citizens worried about the safety of their neighborhoodsand gang violence. Selecting this particular case means that I can play devil’s advocate inarguing the opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling. While the argument will not represent myown personal stance on this case, it is important to that the conduct of prosecutors and all otheragents within the justice system can be questioned. The conviction of the men came at the handsof investigators theories and eyewitness accounts, with no physical evidence. Whether or not thewithheld evidence would be exculpatory should be decided after it is introduced in a new case.From this research, I hope to gain a better understanding of due process and the rightsgranted to US citizens under the Fifth Amendment. I would also like to earn about the gatheringand submission of evidence as it relates to a trial and the conditions that determine whereevidence is admissible in court.ReferencesBarnes, R. (2017, September 22). Supreme Court rules that men convicted in D.C.’s CatherineFuller murder case do not deserve a new trial. Retrieved from The Washington Post:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-that-men-convicted-in-dcs-catherine-fuller-murder-case-do-not-deserve-a-new-trial/2017/06/22/78aed42e-56c8-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.3e06382f60c4Bass, V. (1972). Brady v. Maryland and the Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose. The University ofChicago Law Review, 40(1), 29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1599070Hochman, R. (1996). Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials. heUniversity of Chicago Law Review, 63(4), 33. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1600284Turner v. United States. (2017, Septemeber 22). Retrieved from

As we can see, due process has changed our justice system from hastily-prosecution to time consuming investigation of all the facts. We should stop pre-judging the accused person until all of the facts are made known unto us. Due process has given all accused citizens an equal opportunity to tell their story, and the right to question the evidence that was brought against them. Even though due process has guaranteed the accused person his or her right to be heard