21 June 2003

Of course, the question in this case is: if the evidence was so minor and unimportant and it could not possibly make it into trial - then why wasn't it disclosed prior to the trial?

One of my professors in law school asserted that some officers did this sort of thing on purpose. They would not tell the prosecutor about evidence which they judged false and which might be used by the defense attorney. Thus the prosecutor would not disclose it to the defense attorney as required. After the trial - if the evidence ever saw the light of day - it would be dismissed because it wasn't developed enough to have have shifted the balance of the evidence. Of course, the damage is in the fact that the defense attornies did not have enough time to investigate and develop the evidence so that it could be introduced and make a difference.


No comments: