Here are my seven favorite Brady decisions: 1. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S.83 (1963) Both Brady and his co-defendant were found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After trial, the prosecutor disclosed to Brady that the co-defendant admitted to the homicide. The court held that the prosecutor’s suppression of the confession violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Accordingly, the prosecutor must disclose to the defendant all material evidence that is exculpatory. What is material? Anything
This month the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a judge does not have the discretion to hold a pretrial hearing on the reliability of scientific evidence. Since January 1, 2012 when Arizona adopted the Federal Daubert standard for safeguarding against junk science, several prosecutorial agencies have tried to persuade trial courts that things were “business as usual” despite the new rules of evidence. However, the February 5, 2013 ruling from Division One of the Arizona Court of
Daubert is the name of an United States Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. While the case was decided in 1993, it’s holdings are new to Arizona. Despite some arguments to the contrary by a few luddites, Arizona adopted it on January 1, 2012. Arizona’s change to a Daubert standard for challenging scientific evidence may be the most significant event our court have ever encountered. Currently, there are 31 other states that have adopted
There are many crimes in Arizona that result in a person serving a term of jail. A term of jail can devastate a person’s career. However, there are two programs that will allow a person to continue working while a person is serving a term of jail. Furthermore, these programs DO NOT extend the time a person spends in custody. Under both the Work Furlough and Work Release programs, a person may continue working and fulfill the requirements of their
© 2023 All rights reserved for Koplow Law Firm.