Prosecutorial Ethics and the Right to a Fair Trial: The Role of the Brady Rule (Session 2)
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- January 26, 2007
Presented by: Case Western Reserve Law Review
Speakers:
Professor Paul C. Giannelli, Albert J. Weatherhead III and Richard W. Weatherhead Professor, Case School of Law
Professor Peter A. Joy, Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
Jonathan Leiken, Associate, Corporate Criminal Investigations Practice, Jones Day , Adjunct Assistant Professor, Case School of Law
Summary: Law Review Symposium: Panel Two: Brady and Jailhouse Snitches
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant's due process rights preclude a prosecutor from suppressing material evidence favorable to the defendant. Since the Court's ruling, the Brady rule has shaped the boundaries of a defendant's right to a fair trial and defined the standards of justice in the criminal system. The Case Western Reserve Law Review Symposium will explore the role of the Brady rule in various elements of a criminal case, including plea negotiations, scientific evidence and capital sentencing. Participants will also discuss the Brady rule's impact on prosecutorial ethics in the current justice system. Please join us as many of the country's leading experts examine the issues that are critical for maintaining each citizen's right to a fair and just trial.
The “escalation of commitment” issue is also known as the “sunk cost fallacy” - the more someone has invested in something the more they will defend that investment even when presented with BLANTANT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY,
The last guy claiming that jailhouse snitches are not used *really* is so completely off from the reality of our system - on top of that arguing that testimony offered by very suspect sources like snitches and/or informants with extensive issues is okay because it’s really only done in trials with very bad people accused is not only a misuse of our system but it predetermines guilt and therefore violates every person’s right to a fair trial, which includes proper and legitimate testimony from sources who can be trusted allowed in court.
One of the snitches testified in over TWENTY unrelated cases - claiming that he had been told critical confessions in each case even though the cases were all unrelated. He just happened to be the one guy that everybody whose case was “unsolved” decided to confess to just because…?
We need to focus on rights to victims as well. Seems justice has less rights these days because we are to concerned how approach a criminal. If evidence is strong enough alleged beyond a doubt, then the victim should come first.
I don’t know practically what you are attempting to argue? What does “a victim should come first” mean when the issue is the right of an accused person to a fair trial as set out in our constitution (that is before guilt -“beyond a reasonable doubt” - has been determined)? Yes, treating victims with respect etc is crucial and ethical but that is separate from whether a person accused of a crime has/had his or her constitutional rights violated by the state. You also assume guilt by saying “criminal” when the discussion here concerns the issue of a fair trial - the manner in which an ACCUSED person (you say “criminal” when the point of these talks concerns the fate of a person denied the right to a fair trial based on Brady violations and other issues) was tried, and if the state withheld exculpatory information (Brady violation). A person accused of a crime, who is facing the full investigative and prosecutorial power of the state and/or the federal gov depending on the case, must be informed of exculpatory evidence uncovered during a criminal investigation.
Sandra Elnicki
Corruption
Sandra Elnicki