Access Millions of academic & study documents

Exculpatory Evidence

Content type
User Generated
Subject
Business Law
School
Colorado Technical University
Type
Homework
Showing Page:
1/6
Running head: EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE 1
Exculpatory Evidence
Students name
Institution

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/6
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE 2
Exculpatory Evidence
Discerning relevant evidence is an important government function. Relevant
evidence refers to any evidence that has the tendency to change the existence of a fact
by making it more or less probable. The evidence affects the fact which is
consequential in determining the action. The evidence may include evidence that
could affect the credibility of a hearsay declarant or a witness. On the other hand,
Exculpatory evidence refers to any evidence that favors the defendant and can be used
exonerate the defendant. The prosecution and the police have the duty to turn over
exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal prosecutions before the respondent
enters a plea. Per the Brady vs. Maryland ruling, prosecutors are expected to turn in
any exculpatory evidence even when they have not been asked to so. The Supreme
Court held that handing over of exculpatory evidence is constitutional due processes
and is part of the prosecutors pursuit of justice (McCord and McCord, 2001).
Other than Brady vs. Maryland and Giglio vs. United States, R vs. Stinchcombe
is another case example of that has relevance in the discussion of exculpatory
evidence. R vs. Stinchcombe (full name case is William B. Stinchcombe vs. Her
majesty the Queen) was a 1991 trial whereby the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that
the Crown should disclose any evidence relevant to a trial to the defense regardless of
whether the Crown plans to use the evidence or not in the trial or if the evidence is
going to build or destroy their case. Mr. Stinchcombe requested the court to order the
Crown to release all the evidence they have believing that it could exonerate him, the
court rejected his petition. After Stinchcombe was convicted, an appeal was issued

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/6

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 6 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running head: EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE Exculpatory Evidence Student’s name Institution 1 EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE 2 Exculpatory Evidence Discerning relevant evidence is an important government function. Relevant evidence refers to any evidence that has the tendency to change the existence of a fact by making it more or less probable. The evidence affects the fact which is consequential in determining the action. The evidence may include evidence that could affect the credibility of a hearsay declarant or a witness. On the other hand, Exculpatory evidence refers to any evidence that favors the defendant and can be used exonerate the defendant. The prosecution and the police have the duty to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal prosecutions before the respondent enters a plea. Per the Brady vs. Maryland ruling, prosecutors are expected to turn in any exculpatory evidence even when they have not been asked to so. The Supreme Court held that handing over of exculpatory evidence is constitutional due processes and is part of the prosecutor’s pursuit of justice (McCord and McCord, 2001). Other than Brady vs. Maryland and Giglio vs. United States, R vs. Stinchcombe is another case example of that has relevance in the discussion of exculpatory evidence. R vs. Stinchcombe (full name case is William B. Stinchcombe vs. Her majesty the Queen) was a 1991 trial whereby the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Crown should disclose any evidence relevant to a trial t ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Documents