![]() Therefore, dismissal of the Indictment is inappropriate and unwarranted, and defendant's Motion should be denied. Secondly, defendant has failed to show he has been prejudiced in any way. In fact, the conduct of government attorneys has been at all times ethical and appropriate. First, defendant fails to demonstrate a pattern of government misconduct. government attorneys and agents interfered with defense counsel's access to a government witness.ĭefendant's Motion lacks merit.government attorneys conducted abusive and misleading questioning of witnesses before the grand jury and,.government attorneys had a conflict of interest in conducting the grand jury investigation.In his Motion, the defendant alleges a "pervasive pattern of prosecutorial misconduct prejudicing the Defendant in underlying grand jury proceedings." Def. The United States of America, through its undersigned attorney, hereby responds to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Prosecutorial Misconduct in Grand Jury Proceedings ("Defendant's Motion"). UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICAġ5 U.S.C. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. All information not disclosed must be considered collectively, not item by item.This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting).Failure to disclose information which has a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the trial is inherently harmful, thus there is no need for a separate harmless error review.Rather, the defendant merely must show that the withheld information can reasonably be taken to put the whole case in a different light. “Reasonable probability” is not a sufficiency of evidence test and the defendant does not need to show that the evidence, barring any evidence undermined by the withheld information, is inadequate to support a conviction.“Reasonable probability” is a question of whether the government’s failure to disclose this information undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.Whitley, the Supreme Court clarified four aspects of this test: A defendant meets this burden if they can show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the information been disclosed. The defendant bears the burden to prove that any withheld information was both material and favorable. Additionally, if the prosecution withheld Brady material intentionally or knowingly, they may be subject to sanctions. As a result, the most common outcome of a Brady rule violation is overturning that conviction. Because the Brady rule inherently involves a lack of information on the side of the defense, however, violations of the Brady rule are typically only discovered after the defendant is already convicted. If a Brady rule violation is discovered during trial, the court can either declare a mistrial or prohibit the prosecution from using unfavorable evidence which could be discredited by the withheld information. This duty is breached regardless of whether that information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally. Bagley, however, the Supreme Court eliminated this request requirement and stated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of whether it is requested. Initially, the Brady rule was only applicable if the defendant made a pretrial request for specific information which the prosecution denied. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |