CJUS440-1403A-02 The Laws of Evidence Types of Legal Evidence Phase 1 Individual Project Instruct: S. Jefferson Monday, July 7, 2014 Tammy Wall Case Brief: Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States Brady v. Maryland Facts: Petitioner was convicted of murder in state of Maryland after confessing to being involved in the planning and commission of the crime. Petitioner claims he did not commit the actual murder and should be held less culpable then his accomplice. Defense counsel argued the defendant should not be sentenced to death but should receive a lesser charge of life in prison. Defense counsel requested all accomplice statements prior to trial concerning his confession to the murder. The prosecution turned over the information but withheld one document.
What are the four stages of the judicial process? Pretrial Trial Deposition Appeals Describe each stage, explaining in detail any differences between the criminal and civil courts 1). Pretrial is a conference held before the trial begins to bring the parties together to outline discovery proceedings and to define the issues to be tried; more useful in civil than in criminal cases. Typically, a criminal defendant's first court hearing is an "arraignment" before a judge or magistrate. An "arraignment" is an appearance in court where charges are formally read to a defendant.
They also that police inform suspects of their rights and their access to an immediate council. 2. Describe the criteria for admissibility of scientific evidence as laid out in Frye v. U.S. According to Frye, they would go by your blood pressure to tell if you were telling the truth or lying to a question you were asked. It must also be accepted by the scientific community.
Subsequent to the prosecution putting on the total of its evidence, the defense attorney will customarily ask for a dismissal of the charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. It is the prosecutor’s job to present sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime. The court does not
It is not considered jury tampering because the prosecution and defense attorneys have the right to know the credibility of the person that would be deciding the fate of the defendant. Why or why not? The only way that I would see it being jury tampering is if after the jurors are chosen, someone starts threatening or trying to coerce the witness to not testify at the trial. Lawyers can also exercise a challenge for cause claiming the juror could not be
For those chosen the juror's oath is administered. The Trial The trial begins with counsel making brief opening statements for each side. Evidence such as exhibits and testimony, direct, and cross examination. During the last part of the trial phase the counsel gives closing arguments. Judge's Charge to the Jury After the main trial phase the judge will address the jury.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
The prosecutor pairs up with the law enforcement officers that are gathering the evidence and then they see if they have enough evidence to continue with the case. They also have to make sure they the correct evidence that is needed to pursue the case. Then they have to gather their evidence and witnesses. Review it, eliminate anything not strong enough for the case, gather evidence that proves in favor of the case, then they file motions. This is how the prosecutor determines which cases to pursue.
First you have the Prosecution. The responsibility of the prosecution is to prove that without a shadow of a doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Im sure there are times that the prosecution does not think the defendant is not guilty but it is there moral right to keep the trial going and prove their case. It has got to be difficult for the prosecution to know that because of the case they have built against a person could decide the rest of their life. Lets get to the Defense.
At this time if the defendant chooses to have a counsel present, the counsel has to be present them from the beginning of the defendant’s court proceedings, through the end of the initial appearance through the appeal, unless the defendant chooses to waive there rights. This is governed by federal and local courts because in some cases there appears to be multiple arrests, and because of this Joint Representation is possible. This allows defendants to be represented by the same attorney’s. Sometimes the court orders separate cases tried to bring in a single indictment. Afterwards the arraignment is opened in court to make sure the defendant has a copy of their indictment, after the indictment is read and the defendant is asked to give a plea whether guilty or not guilty.