I was working through a story with something occurred to me that i would like an answer to by someone with a legal background.
Ok let's say you are a prosecutor and you have a piece of evidence (let's say a previous statement) that wasn't presented in court. Could you still use that evidence as a way to fact check what the defendant says when appropriate?
Ok let's say you are a prosecutor and you have a piece of evidence (let's say a previous statement) that wasn't presented in court. Could you still use that evidence as a way to fact check what the defendant says when appropriate?
No.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings
I would say, that if you have statement in deposition that contradicts in court testimony, you would be able present it. But, I am not anywhere near an expert.
let's say you are a prosecutor and you have a piece of evidence (let's say a previous statement) that wasn't presented in court. Could you still use that evidence as a way to fact check what the defendant says when appropriate?
If said evidence was included within the actual discovery, such that the defense knew about it before the trial, then it could be used even if it had not previously been referenced during the trial.
If the evidence was NOT known to the defense, then the prosecution cannot simply spring it upon the defense. The contents of all depositions by the prosecution have to be shared with the defense.
I would hope that a Masters Degree in Criminology, which is the study of all aspects of the criminal justice system, which means constitutional law, law enforcement, the judiciary, corrections, etc., might give me a bit of knowledge about this.
If said evidence was included within the actual discovery, such that the defense knew about it before the trial, then it could be used even if it had not previously been referenced during the trial.
I'm honestly curious about a related question on this. What if the evidence in question comes to light after discovery and the trial has commenced?
What if the evidence in question comes to light after discovery and the trial has commenced?
I am neither a lawyer or a criminologist.
However, my understanding is that even in a civil context the lawyers would need to demonstrate that there is no possibility they could have found the evidence in question earlier before they would be allowed to use it.
In a criminal context, the courts may allow the defense to make such a showing that the evidence could not have been found before trial.
However, since the prosecution has sole control over when/whether to go to trial, the courts are generally hostile to claims of newly discovered evidence by the prosecution. Not that such evidence would never be allowed, but the prosecution faces a much higher burden in justifying it, and even then the defense will usually be granted a delay in the trial to examine the evidence before the prosecution is allowed to present it to a jury.
What if the evidence in question comes to light after discovery and the trial has commenced?
In the case of the prosecutors side, they're shit out of luck. At best, they can hope for either a mistrial or the conclusion of the trial, so they can file to reopen the case based upon new and compelling evidence that there is a reason to do so. Note that they specifically have to reopen the case, they cannot simply file new charges against the defendant based upon the new evidence. Double jeopardy applies then.
On the defense's side, they can file a motion of after-discovery evidence if they've already had to share their evidence with the prosecutor, and if they haven't had to do so, they can just spring it on the prosecution. We're seeing a lot of cases now where the trial has been over for a long time, the defendant was imprisoned, and new evidence comes up, due to scientific advances in processing evidence.