Discovery in criminal cases and the requirements of Brady/Giglio

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Discovery in criminal cases and the requirements of Brady/Giglio"

Transcription

1 Discovery in criminal cases and the requirements of Brady/Giglio By Denis M. devlaming On May 16, 2016, Rule (minimum standards for attorneys in felony cases) will take effect. It reads: before an attorney may participate as counsel of record in the Circuit Court for any adult felony case, including post-conviction proceedings before the trial court, the attorney must complete a course, approved by the Florida Bar for continuing legal education credits, of at least 100 minutes and covering the legal and ethical obligations of discovery in a criminal case, including the requirements of Rule 3.220, and the principles established in Brady v. Maryland, 1 and Giglio vs. United States,. 2 The purpose of this article is to discuss Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure and, in particular, to address the legal and ethical principles established in the above case law decisions. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure (discovery) provides the legal requirements and obligations of both the state and the defense once a notice of discovery is filed by the defense. In doing so, it is electing to require the state to produce certain information and perform certain obligations in return for which the defense has a reciprocal duty to comply with the rule. The defense may not circumvent the rule by filing a public records request under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, nor receive discovery information as a result of a co-defendant s participation in discovery. Paragraph (a) states if any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a co-defendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery. Once the defense elects to participate in Rule 3.220, the prosecution has 15 days after service of the notice of discovery to serve a written discovery exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, test, and photograph (with certain exceptions such as sexual performance by a child or child pornography. Defense may view such evidence while in the custody of the state), a list of the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information that may be relevant to any offense charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section (2), Florida Statutes. The names and addresses of such persons listed are designated into three categories. Category A include eyewitnesses, alibi witnesses and rebuttal to alibi witnesses, witnesses who were present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was taken from or made by a defendant or co-defendant, which shall be separately identified within this category, investigating officers, witnesses known by the prosecutor to have any material information that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged, child hearsay witnesses, expert witnesses who have not provided a written report and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify to test results, and informant witnesses, whether in custody, who offer testimony concerning the statements of the defendant about the issues for which the defendant is being tried. Category B witnesses are all witnesses not listed in either category A or category C. Category C witnesses comprise all witnesses who performed only ministerial functions or who the prosecutor does not intend to call at trial and whose involvement with and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or other statement furnished to the defense. The rule defines the term statement. It includes a written statement made by the person and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person and also includes any statement of any kind or manner made

2 by the person and written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording. It is specifically intended to include all police and investigative reports of any kind prepared for or in connection with the case, but shall not include the notes from which those reports are compiled. It also includes any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant, including a copy of any statements contained in police reports or report summaries, together with the name and address of each witness to the statements. The prosecution further has the requirement to provide any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by a co-defendant, any recorded grand jury minutes that contain testimony of the defendant, any tangible papers or objects that were obtained from or belong to the defendant and whether the state has any material or information that has been provided by a confidential informant. The prosecution must also turn over any electronic surveillance, including wiretapping, of the premises of the defendant or of conversations to which the defendant was a party and any documents relating thereto as well as whether there has been any search or seizure and any documents relating to such activity. Any reports or statements of experts made in connection with a particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons must also be disclosed to the defense. If the prosecuting attorney intends to use at hearing or trial any tangible papers or objects not obtained from or did not belong to the defendant, they must also be disclosed. If there are any tangible papers, objects or substances in the possession of law enforcement that could be tested for DNA, Rule 3.220(L) requires their disclosure. On July 1, 2014, an important amendment was made to Rule It had to do with a new subdivision - (b)(1)(m) - relating to the state s obligations to disclose whether it has any material or information that has been provided by an informant witness. The rule includes the following five types of material or information: (i) the substance of any statement allegedly made by the defendant about which the informant witness may testify; (ii) a summary of the criminal history record of the informant witness; (iii) the time and place under which the defendant s alleged statement was made; (iv) whether the informant witness has received, or expects to receive, anything in exchange for his or her testimony; (v) the informant witness prior history of cooperation, in return for any benefit, as known to the prosecutor. In defining any benefit the Supreme Court provided additional guidance. It includes, but is not limited to, any deal, promise, inducement, pay, leniency, immunity, personal advantage, vindication, or other benefit that the prosecution, or any person acting on behalf of the prosecution, has knowingly made or may make in the future. If the prosecution believes that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure after an in camera review. If the court determines that the state has failed in its discovery obligations, it may prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the witnesses or material not disclosed under (b)(3). REGARDLESS of whether the defense elects to engage in discovery, (b)(4) requires the prosecution to disclose to the defendant any material information

3 within the state s possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged. (Brady) It may be noted here that paragraph (c) allows the court to require a defendant to appear in a lineup, speak for identification by witnesses to an offense, be fingerprinted, pose for photographs not involving reenactment of the scene, try on articles of clothing, permit the taking of specimens of material under the defendant s fingernails, permit the taking of samples of the defendant s blood, hair and other materials of the defendant s body that involves no unreasonable intrusion thereof, provide specimens of the defendant s handwriting and submit to a reasonable physical or mental inspection of the defendant s body. These requirements are independent of the defendant s election to engage in discovery. Obtaining the above actions before the filing of the charging document, may require the issuance of a valid search warrant. After electing to engage in discovery, the defendant takes on certain obligations. Within 15 days after receipt by the defendant of the discovery exhibit furnished by the prosecution, the defense must furnish to the prosecutor a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant expects to call as witnesses at the trial or hearing. It may be noted here that the obligation by the defense is different from that of the prosecution. That is, the prosecutor must give the names and addresses of all witnesses that may have information concerning the charge or charges. The defense on the other hand is only required to provide the names and addresses of witnesses whom the defendant expects to call at the trial or hearing. After the defense provides its witnesses to the state and the state thereafter attempts to subpoena that witness, the rules applicable to the taking of depositions shall apply. Within 15 days after receipt of the prosecutor s discovery exhibit the defendant must also serve a written discovery exhibit upon the prosecution which allows the prosecutor to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the statement of any person listed by the defense (other than the defendant), the reports or statements of experts made in connection with a particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons. This latest paragraph (d)(1)(b)(ii) has caused some controversy which has made its way to the second District Court of Appeal. In Kidder v. State, 3 the appellate court ruled that when the defense elects to engage in discovery, it must turn over to the state such reports or statements of its expert regardless of whether they intend to use or call that witness at hearing or trial. Reciprocal discovery also requires the defense to disclose to the prosecution any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in any hearing or trial. The filing of a protective order by the state automatically stays the times provided in the rule. If a protective order is granted, the defendant may, within two days thereafter, or at any time before the prosecutor furnishes the information or material that is the subject of the motion for protective order, withdraw the defendant s notice of discovery and not be required to furnish reciprocal discovery. Counsel is authorized by the rule to file a motion restricting disclosure where there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from such disclosure that outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party. There is a catchall paragraph found in (d)(3)(f) which states that on a showing of materiality, the court may require such other discovery to the parties as justice may require.

4 There are certain matters that are not subject to disclosure by either side. Work product that might include legal research or records, correspondence, reports, or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the prosecuting or defense attorney or members of their legal staffs. Lastly, the disclosure of confidential informants shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial or a failure to disclose the informant s identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant (please see Florida Defender magazine (Spring 2001) article entitled Confidential Informants: How Confidential are they? by this author for how to obtain disclosure). Subparagraph (h) deals with the taking of depositions. Since the purpose of this article is to discuss discovery obligations as well as Brady and Giglio responsibilities, a discussion of the deposition process will be eliminated with the exception of a comment concerning misdemeanor depositions. No deposition shall be taken in a case in which the defendant is charged only with a misdemeanor or a criminal traffic offense when all other discovery provided by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure has been complied with unless good cause can be shown to the trial court. However paragraph (h)(1)(d) states this prohibition against the taking of depositions shall not be applicable if following the furnishing of discovery by the defendant, the state then takes the statement of a listed defense witness (in a state attorney investigation under F.S ). The reader may wish to be reminded that no oath is required when taking a telephonic deposition (see (h)(8)). The rule specifically allows the statement to be used for impeachment purposes at trial nonetheless. A discussion about Brady and Giglio is in order now. STANDARD The standard for a Brady 4 violation is a demonstration that the defendant shows (1) favorable evidence, either exculpatory or impeaching (2) such evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the state, and (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced. 5 The United States Supreme Court further addressed the issues in Brady in In deciding whether Brady violations will result in a new trial, the court must determine the totality of the violations in making the decision whether a new trial should be granted. That is, it is not each individual violation that is determinative, but rather all violations taken as a whole. The test to use whether a new trial should be granted is as follows: the defendant does not have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted in the defendant s acquittal. Instead, the reasonable probability test applies which is less than preponderance. A reasonable probability of a different result is one which undermines confidence in the outcome of a trial. The analysis does not include a process whereby after taking the Brady material into account there was enough untainted evidence left to convict. The suppressed evidence should be considered collectively, not item by item. The suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. 7 The materiality inquiry under Brady is not just a matter of determining whether, after discounting inculpatory evidence in light of undisclosed evidence, the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the jury s conclusions. Rather, the question is whether favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine the confidence in the verdict. 8 On

5 occasion, prosecutors misconstrue their obligations under Brady. Their belief is that their obligation is solely to disclose exculpatory information (evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the accused) and that their obligation ends there. Brady specifically includes providing material impeaching information to the defense 9 and due process rights are violated irrespective of good or bad faith on the part of the prosecution if the prosecution suppresses material, favorable evidence. 10 When a violation does in fact occur, an evidentiary hearing is required in order to determine whether the violation would require a new trial. 11 PROSECUTORS OBLIGATIONS To comply with Brady, the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence and to disclose that evidence to the defense. This includes impeachment evidence, as noted before. 12 The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require a prosecutor to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial. 13 In determining what evidence or witnesses are known to the prosecution that require disclosure, the state is charged with constructive knowledge of information in the hands of law enforcement. 14 An assistant state attorney is held to knowing information held by other lawyers and agents working in the state attorney s office. 15 A prosecutor may also be found to have violated the cannons of ethics if he or she is in possession of information that is required to be turned over under Brady if it is intentionally withheld. 16 Case law has even held that the obligations under Brady exist even if a document is work product or exempt from the public records law. 17 One case dealt specifically with notes taken by the state attorney of witness interviews. 18 A new penalty phase was ordered in a capital case based upon the state s failure to disclose Brady evidence of state attorney notes of witness interviews which showed troopers and other witnesses uncertainty as to whether a shotgun or pistol was fired first, where the notes would have provided impeachment evidence to the trooper s testimony and could have corroborated defense witnesses at trial. The trooper s certainty was critical to the aggravator being upheld on direct appeal. Even in cases where the state does not personally possess the exculpatory evidence, a violation may occur if the evidence is in constructive possession of the state. One case has ruled that the state had constructive knowledge and constructive possession of a ballistics report which was contained in the records of the police department and not in the prosecutor s file. The state s failure to timely deliver the report to defense counsel constituted a discovery violation. 19 Even the fact that the defense knew that the state had performed certain analysis does not excuse the prosecutor s obligation to provide the results of that analysis favorable to the defense. Our state Supreme Court has ruled that the fact that the defendant knew the state had performed analysis of hair found on a murder victim did not excuse the state from disclosing results, which excluded the defendant as the source of the hairs. Once the state obtained the results of the hair analysis, it was required under Brady to disclose them to the defendant. 20 Furthermore, the state is required to disclose the existence of other suspects, especially where the other person had confessed to the murders, and at least one detail of that confession matched forensic evidence indicating that hairs found clutched in one victim s hand did not belong to the defendant. 21 Brady violations occur, requiring a new trial, in cases where the state fails to disclose evidence of a reward for testimony given to a witness who testifies at trial. 22 As well as where a prosecutor fails to disclose a witness statement that the defendant s accomplice used an alias that the defendant had contended actually shot the alleged the victim. The prosecutor then argued that

6 the individual did not exist. 23 And a Brady violation has been found to have occurred by the failure of the state to advise the defense about concessions made to a jailhouse informant in return for his testimony against the defendant. 24 VIOLATIONS Our U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecutor may hide, defendant must seek is not tenable in providing due process when considering Brady violations. 25 They have been found to have occurred by the courts in cases where the state fails to tell the defendant of an alibi witness they learn from the co-defendant. 26 It has also been found to be a violation under both Brady and the standards of conduct for the state bar for the prosecutor to fail to disclose a testifying codefendant s work release status when the prosecutor argued to the jury that the co-defendant was serving two consecutive life sentences. 27 And allegations in a post-conviction motion brought in connection with a guilty plea to DUI manslaughter that the state failed to reveal blood tests showing that the other driver had alcohol and drugs in her system, that it also failed to disclose a witness s statements to police that indicated the other driver was intoxicated, driving erratically, and talking on the cell phone at the time of the collision were factually sufficient to support a claimed Brady violation. 28 Disclosure is also required where information concerning a financial motive of a critical witness who testifies at trial is withheld. In one case, the state withheld a workman s compensation letter detailing a bouncer s receipt of approximately $24,000 in a prosecution for battery and disorderly conduct arising from an incident in which the defendant intervened in an altercation between his friend and the bouncer at a bar. The workers compensation statute precluded compensation if the injury was occasioned primarily by the willful intention of an employee to injure or kill another. The defense would have wanted to use the letter to demonstrate the bouncer s financial motive to paint the defendant and his friend as instigators of the initial fight. The court ruled that type of financial interest was a proper subject of impeachment in cross examination. 29 And a drug defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the state s failure to disclose a fingerprint technician s report concluding that a fingerprint found at drug lab was not the defendants. The report was material and favorable to the defendant. 30 Lastly, a prosecutor s failure to disclose a witness s statement that he saw a person resembling defendant s wife driving a vehicle similar to the murder victim s truck violated due process obligations under Brady, even though the witness s name was on a lead sheet given to the defendant. The witness s statement conflicted with the wife s denial that she had been in the truck and it could have supported a finding that the wife possessed the truck contrary to her testimony. NO VIOLATIONS In 2002, the United States Supreme Court handed down an opinion that ruled prosecutors were not required to provide exculpatory evidence to defendants who are considering entering into a plea bargain prior to trial. 31 In essence, if the prosecution has a problem with its case such as a witness who has failed to cooperate and will not come in to testify against a defendant, the state has no obligation to advise the defense. This also includes impeachment information which normally would be required to be disclosed if a defendant is proceeding to trial. The exception to this, according to the opinion, is factual innocence. If the state learns of information which exonerates the defendant and shows that he or she is factually innocent, then such information must be disclosed regardless of whether there is an offered plea bargain. This includes information

7 learned by the state wherein a critical witness, such as a victim, recants their testimony or changes it in a material way (what they have told the defense in deposition) but later tells the state that they were lying. In one state case, it was ruled that the state has an obligation under Brady to disclose to the defendant prior to trial that the child victim s trial testimony would differ from that which she gave at her deposition to the extent that she would effectively admit to perjury at the deposition. The case involved a prosecution for sexual battery on a child and the state learned of the victim s planned change in testimony during the week before trial. 32 There are other instances where the state holds no obligation to provide information which the defense believes falls under Brady. In one such case, the state failed to disclose psychiatric reports, jail records and notes from one of the state s expert witnesses and no violation was found because such information was either in the possession of the defense or could have been obtained from sources other than the state by the defense. 33 And in some cases, the courts have ruled that the information is just not material. For instance, our state Supreme Court has ruled that the fact that a prosecution witness had been booked as an accessory after the fact (for the crime) and released was not material and so the state was not required to disclose such information under Brady. 34 And when the information is in fact material but was equally accessible to the defense and the prosecution, there is no violation. 35 Although there are times when the dismissal of a charge is appropriate where the state destroys evidence material to a crime, the trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a charge of attempted murder in the first degree of a law enforcement officer on the basis of a Brady violation for destruction of a shirt that the defendant was wearing at the time of the incident where the defendant could make the argument that the victim misidentified the perpetrator by utilizing a photograph of a shirt coupled with the officers testimony confirming that the photograph accurately depicted what the defendant was wearing on the night of the shooting and there was no reason why the actual shirt would have to be introduced to assert that argument. 36 Lastly, in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that where a critical witness for the state underwent a polygraph examination and failed it with respect to certain vital facts, the prosecution was under no obligation to disclose such information to the defense because such evidence was not admissible at trial. 37 GIGLIO The tests for materiality under Brady and Giglio 38 are different. Under Brady, the nondisclosed evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Under Giglio, which is more defense friendly, the prosecutor s knowing use of perjured testimony, or the prosecutor s failure to correct what he subsequently learned was false testimony, is material if there is a reasonable probability that the false evidence may have affected the judgment of the jury. 39 To show that the prosecutor had a duty to correct testimony of a prosecution witness concealing bias, the defendant must show that the testimony was false, that the prosecutor knew the testimony was false, and that the statement was material. If there is no reasonable possibility that such false evidence may have affected the judgment of the jury, a new trial is not required. 40 Many Giglio violations occur when a testifying witness for the state conceals or fails to admit that he or she is receiving some favorable treatment in order to get them to testify against the defendant. To prove a Giglio violation arising out of a prosecution witness s testimony about their sentence in exchange for testimony, the defendant needs to show either that the witness s plea agreement

8 did not actually call for a particular sentence testified to or that the prosecutor misled the jury by stating that the witness would actually be sentenced to such term of imprisonment if he testified truthfully against the defendant and such was not true. 41 Once establishing a Giglio violation by showing (1) the testimony was false; (2) the prosecutor knew the testimony was false; and (3) the statement was material, the state bears the burden to show that the false evidence was not material. 42 This requires the state to prove that the presentation of false testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or in other words, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. 43 It should be noted here that because Giglio (and Brady) are constitutional obligations, evidence must be disclosed regardless of whether the defendant makes a request for exculpatory or impeachment evidence. 44 A violation of Giglio may result not only in the trial court ordering a new trial or sentencing hearing but also sanctions by the Florida Bar. Rule (candor toward the tribunal) makes it clear. In (a)(4) it reads A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. CONCLUSION The obligation of any practicing attorney to appear in court and either prosecute or defend a citizen on trial requires the understanding of the rules of criminal procedure as well as the obligations contained under Brady and Giglio. Only when those rules and principles are followed can the public be assured that justice is truly being pursued uniformly and fairly U.S. 83 (1963) U.S. 150 (1972) 3 Kidder v. State, 117 So.3d 1166 (Fla. 2 nd DCA 2013) 4 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 5 Wyatt v. State, 78 So.3d 512 (Fla. 2011); Ponticelli v. State, 941 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2006); Reaves v. State, 826 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2002); Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2002); Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1999); Buenoano v. State, 708 So.2d 941 (Fla. 1998); Robinson v. State, 707 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1998); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1995); Hildwin v. Dugger, 654 So.2d 107 (Fla. 1995); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 1992); Mendyk v. State, 592 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 1992) and Routly v. State, 590 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1991) 6 Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct (1995) 7 State v. Thomas, 826 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 2 nd DCA 2002) 8 Cardona v. State, 826 So.2d 968 (Fla. 2002); State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 2002) and State v. Knight, 866 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2003) 9 Brady v. Maryland, Supra and United States v. Biaggi, 675 F.Supp. 790 (SDNY 1987) 10 State v. Powers, 555 So.2d 888 (Fla. 2 nd DCA 1990) 11 Muhamad v. State, 603 So.2d 488 (Fla. 1992) 12 Mordenti v. State, 894 So.2d 161 (Fla. 2004)

9 13 Mungin v. State, 79 So.3d 726 (Fla. 2011) 14 Curry v. State, 1 So.3d 394 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2009) and Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975 (Fla. 2009) 15 Curry, Id. 16 Lewis v. State, 714 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 2 nd DCA 1998) 17 Young v. State, 739 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1999) 18 Young, Id. 19 Whites v. State, 730 So.2d 762 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1999) 20 Allen v. State, 854 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2003) and Hoffman v. State, 800 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2001) 21 Hoffman, Id. 22 Glendenning v. State, 604 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2 nd DCA 1992) 23 Garcia v. State, 622 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1993) 24 Kight v. Dugger, 574 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1990) 25 Banks v. Dretke, 124 S.Ct (2004) 26 Cipollina v. State, 501 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2 nd DCA 1986) 27 Craig v. State, 685 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 1996) 28 Taylor v. State, 848 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2003) 29 Deren v. State, 15 So.3d 723 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2009) 30 Duarte v. State, 598 So.2d 270 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 1992) 31 United States v. Ruiz, 122 S.Ct (Fla. 2002) and Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) 32 Bell v. State, 930 So.2d 779 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2006) 33 Provanzano v. State, 616 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1993) 34 Porter v. State, 653 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1995) 35 Roberts v. State, 568 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1990) 36 State v. Gilson, 56 So.3d 146 (Fla. 2 nd DCA 2011) 37 Wood v. Bartholomew, 116 S.Ct. 7 (Fla. 1995) 38 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 39 Ventura v. State, 794 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2001) 40 Craig v. State, Supra. 41 Ferrell v. State, 29 So.3d 959 (Fla. 2010) 42 Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2003); Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2003); Cooper v. State, 856 So.2d 969 (Fla. 2003) and Riechmann v. State, 966 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2007) 43 Ponticelli v. State, 941 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2006) 44 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) and Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999)

BRADY Case Law Florida

BRADY Case Law Florida BRADY Case Law Florida Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Exculpatory and/or impeachment evidence must be given to the defense by the government whether asked for or not. United States v. Biaggi, 675

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. 92,885 RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. 92,885 RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOHN WESLEY HENDERSON, v. Petitioner, CASE NO. 92,885 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES

More information

Criminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady

Criminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady Criminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady Shannon L. Taylor Commonwealth's Attorney's Office P.O. Box 90775 Henrico VA 23273-0775 Tel: 804-501-5051

More information

the defense written or recorded statements of the defendant or codefendant, the defendant s

the defense written or recorded statements of the defendant or codefendant, the defendant s DISCOVERY AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE I. Introduction In Utah, criminal defendants are generally entitled to broad pretrial discovery. Rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that upon request

More information

15A-903. Disclosure of evidence by the State Information subject to disclosure. (a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order:

15A-903. Disclosure of evidence by the State Information subject to disclosure. (a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order: SUBCHAPTER IX. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE. Article 48. Discovery in the Superior Court. 15A-901. Application of Article. This Article applies to cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior court. (1973,

More information

FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 2008 Edition

FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 2008 Edition FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 2008 Edition All changes through May 1, 2008 are reflected in these rules. Effective July 1, 2008, Rule 8.165(a) is amended to provide that waiver of counsel can only

More information

FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 2011 Edition

FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 2011 Edition FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 2011 Edition All changes through February 3, 2011 are reflected in these rules. Effective January 1, 2010, Rules 8.010; 8.070; 8.080; 8.100; 8.115; and 8.130 were amended.

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC13-1541 PER CURIAM. IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220. [May 29, 2014] This matter is before the Court, on the Court s own motion, for consideration

More information

Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background

Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background Review from Introduction to Law The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court is the final

More information

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) VS. ) REQUEST FOR ) VOLUNTARY DISCOVERY ) (ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ) DISCOVERY) Defendant.

More information

Section 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2

Section 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2 Discovery in Criminal Cases Table of Contents Section 1: Statement of Purpose... 2 Section 2: Voluntary Discovery... 2 Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2 Section 4: Mandatory Disclosure by

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC06-539 MILFORD WADE BYRD, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [April 2, 2009] This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying Milford Byrd

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No.

More information

Title 3 - Tribal Court Chapter 3 - Rules of Criminal Procedure

Title 3 - Tribal Court Chapter 3 - Rules of Criminal Procedure Title 3 - Tribal Court Chapter 3 - Rules of Criminal Procedure Title Authority Purpose and Scope Definitions Time Computation Assistance from State and Federal Agencies Subchapter I - Complaints Form of

More information

Criminal Law Table of Contents

Criminal Law Table of Contents Criminal Law Table of Contents Attorney - Client Relations Legal Services Retainer Agreement - Hourly Fee Appearance of Counsel Waiver of Conflict of Interest Letter Declining Representation Motion to

More information

Friday 30th January, 2004.

Friday 30th January, 2004. Friday 30th January, 2004. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective April 1, 2004. Amend Rule 3A:11

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida. SC04-2489 IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CONFORM RULES TO 2004 LEGISLATION. PER CURIAM. [April 7, 2005] CORRECTED OPINION The Florida Bar s Criminal

More information

CHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE

CHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE Brady Issues and Post-Conviction Relief San Francisco Training Seminar July 15, 2010 CHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE By J. Bradley O Connell First District Appellate Project, Assistant

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant(s). Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The defendant(s), appeared for

More information

Francis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John

Francis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John I. Overview of the Complaint Francis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John Alford were part of a team of Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted Michael Anderson

More information

death penalty. In prosecuting the case, State v. Michael Anderson, Mr. Alford and Mr.

death penalty. In prosecuting the case, State v. Michael Anderson, Mr. Alford and Mr. I. Description of Misconduct In August 2009, Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys Kevin Guillory and John Alford conducted a trial on behalf of the State of Louisiana. The defendant faced the death

More information

William Thomas Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 2130, September Term, 2005

William Thomas Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 2130, September Term, 2005 HEADNOTES: William Thomas Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 2130, September Term, 2005 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT - LACK OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE Where search and seizure warrant for

More information

A Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

A Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXPERIENCE A Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP I. Introduction For nearly fifty years, the United States Supreme Court s decisions in Brady v.

More information

SECOND AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. The Defendant, NELSON SERRANO, respectfully files this Second

SECOND AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. The Defendant, NELSON SERRANO, respectfully files this Second IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 10 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION CASE NO. CF01-3262 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Plaintiff, NELSON SERRANO, Defendant/Petitioner. / SECOND

More information

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST Unless You Came From The Criminal Division Of A County Attorneys Office, Most Judges Have Little Or

More information

Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step

Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step Criminal Law & Procedure For Paralegals Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step Path of Criminal Cases in Queens Commencement Arraignment Pre-Trial Trial Getting The Defendant Before The Court! There are four

More information

This article may be cited as the Access to Justice Post-Conviction DNA Testing Act.

This article may be cited as the Access to Justice Post-Conviction DNA Testing Act. Page 1 Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976 Annotated Currentness Title 17. Criminal Procedures Chapter 28. Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Preservation of Evidence Article 1. Post-Conviction DNA Procedures

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. LEROY MACKEY, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. LEROY MACKEY, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-879 L.T. CASE NO. 4D09-527 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. LEROY MACKEY, Respondent. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION PAMELA JO BONDI Attorney

More information

POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT

POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT Research Division, Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT Criminal Procedure April 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Detention and Arrest... 1 Detention and Arrest Under a Warrant... 1 Detention

More information

The purpose of this policy to establish guidelines for release and dissemination of public information to news media.

The purpose of this policy to establish guidelines for release and dissemination of public information to news media. Policy Title: Law Enforcement Media Relations Accreditation Reference: Effective Date: October 15, 2014 Review Date: Supercedes: Policy Number: 3.70 Pages: 1.9.1 Attachments: October 15, 2017 April 26,

More information

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH Edwin S. Wall, A7446 ATTORNEY AT LAW 8 East Broadway, Ste. 405 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801 523-3445 Facsimile: (801 746-5613 Electronic Notice: edwin@edwinwall.com IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL

More information

Case 3:15-cr AJB Document 11 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:15-cr AJB Document 11 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 4 Case :-cr-0-ajb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 DONOVAN & DONOVAN Barbara M. Donovan, Esq. California State Bar Number: The Senator Building 0 West F. Street San Diego, California 0 Telephone: ( - Attorney

More information

NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1

NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Jon Stuart

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Jon Stuart KENNETH RAY SHARP, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-006 / 05-1771 Filed June 25, 2008 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo

More information

Criminal Procedure Act 2009

Criminal Procedure Act 2009 Examinable excerpts of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 as at 2 October 2017 CHAPTER 2 COMMENCING A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PART 2.1 WAYS IN WHICH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED 5 How a criminal proceeding

More information

1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)?

1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)? Canadian Law 2204 Criminal Law and he Criminal Trial Process Unit 2 Test Multiple Choice Name: { / 85} 1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)? death trap investigative

More information

DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL CASES

DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL CASES DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL CASES Robert Farb, UNC School of Government (May 2015) Contents I. Related Materials.... 2 II. Defendant s Discovery Rights.... 2 A. Statutory Rights Under Article 48.... 2 1. Generally....

More information

Vermont Bar Association Seminar Materials. 62nd Mid-Year Meeting. Criminal Law 101

Vermont Bar Association Seminar Materials. 62nd Mid-Year Meeting. Criminal Law 101 Vermont Bar Association Seminar Materials 62nd Mid-Year Meeting Criminal Law 101 March 22, 2019 Lake Morey Resort Fairlee, VT Speakers: Katelyn Atwood, Esq. Katelyn B. Atwood, Esq. Rutland County Public

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:16-cr-00010-BMM Document 80 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 14 BRYAN T. DAKE Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney=s Office P.O. Box 3447 Great Falls, MT 59403 119 First Ave. North, #300 Great Falls, MT

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011 POLEN, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011 JUAN GUARDADO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D07-4422 [May 18, 2011] Appellant, Juan Guardado,

More information

GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE

GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Before completing the questionnaire please note: You must not be currently represented by counsel and the crime and conviction must have occurred in Michigan.

More information

American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary

American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary acquit: affidavit: alibi: amendment: appeal: arrest: arraignment: bail: To set free or discharge from accusation; to declare that the defendant is innocent

More information

Brady and Exculpatory Evidence

Brady and Exculpatory Evidence V Brady and Exculpatory Evidence Stacey M. Soule State Prosecuting Attorney @OSPATX www.spa.texas.gov John R. Messinger Assistant State Prosecuting Attorney Brady Morton Act Rules of Professional Conduct

More information

US Supreme Court. Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 14 State Appellate Courts

US Supreme Court. Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 14 State Appellate Courts US Supreme Court Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 14 State Appellate Courts State County Court / District Court Federal District Court US Legal System Common

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 JAY VERNON MOSS, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D03-1566 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed November 21, 2003 3.850Appeal

More information

Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step

Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step Criminal Law & Procedure For Paralegals Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step 2 Getting Defendant Before The Court! There are four methods to getting the defendant before the court 1) Warrantless Arrest 2)

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DANIEL SCOTT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-3843

More information

Court Records Glossary

Court Records Glossary Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement

More information

Bench or Court Trial: A trial that takes place in front of a judge with no jury present.

Bench or Court Trial: A trial that takes place in front of a judge with no jury present. GLOSSARY Adversarial System: A justice system in which the defendant is presumed innocent and both sides may present competing views of the evidence (as opposed to an inquisitorial system where the state

More information

Serving the Law Enforcement Community and the Citizens of Washington

Serving the Law Enforcement Community and the Citizens of Washington WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS & POLICE CHIEFS 3060 Willamette Drive NE Lacey, WA 98516 ~ Phone: (360) 486-2380 ~ Fax: (360) 486-2381 ~ Website: www.waspc.org Serving the Law Enforcement Community

More information

BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION

BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION The following is an internal policy that addresses

More information

CHAPTER 337. (Senate Bill 211)

CHAPTER 337. (Senate Bill 211) CHAPTER 337 (Senate Bill 211) AN ACT concerning Public Safety Statewide DNA Data Base System Crimes of Violence, and Burglary, and Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle Sample Collections on Arrest Charge

More information

Events such as the fatal

Events such as the fatal istockphoto.com/cranach/ioanmasay/mokee81 Events such as the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, growing officer safety concerns, and divergent accounts of officer-involved

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2004 v No. 245057 Midland Circuit Court JACKIE LEE MACK, LC No. 02-001062-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Third District Court of Appeal

Third District Court of Appeal Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 18, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2418 Lower Tribunal No. 09-33121 Tyler Darnell, Appellant,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 71 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. -against- PEOPLE'S VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 71 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. -against- PEOPLE'S VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 71 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK KEVIN CLOR, -against- PEOPLE'S VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM Indictment No. 05866/2011 Defendant. The

More information

Innocence Protections Proposal

Innocence Protections Proposal Innocence Protections Proposal presented to the Nevada State Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice June 14, 2016 by the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center Innocence Project Introduction Protecting

More information

BUSINESS LAW. Chapter 8 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes

BUSINESS LAW. Chapter 8 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes BUSINESS LAW Chapter 8 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes Learning Objectives List and describe the essential elements of a crime. Describe criminal procedure, including arrest, indictment, arraignment, and

More information

Chapter 813 Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2003 EDITION Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty

Chapter 813 Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2003 EDITION Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty Chapter 813 Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2003 EDITION DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICANTS OREGON VEHICLE CODE GENERAL PROVISIONS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants;

More information

PART I INTRODUCTORY MATTERS AND TERMINOLOGY 1

PART I INTRODUCTORY MATTERS AND TERMINOLOGY 1 Preface xxv Acknowledgments xxix Art Credits xxxi About the Author xxxiii PART I INTRODUCTORY MATTERS AND TERMINOLOGY 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE 2 Chapter Topics 2 Objectives

More information

SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Editor's Note 1: This handout contains a detailed answer explanation for each Evidence question that appeared

More information

JOSEPH M. LATONA, ESQ. 716 BRISBANE BUILDING 403 MAIN STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK (716)

JOSEPH M. LATONA, ESQ. 716 BRISBANE BUILDING 403 MAIN STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK (716) Supplemental Outline on Effective Discovery JOSEPH M. LATONA, ESQ. 716 BRISBANE BUILDING 403 MAIN STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14203 (716) 842-0416 INTRODUCTION This outline supplements the thorough course

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-1540 Lower Tribunal No. 12-9493 Sandor Eduardo Guillen,

More information

ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1

ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1 ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1 Constitution Art. I, 6.01 Basic rights for crime victims. (a) Crime victims, as defined by law or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO [Cite as State v. Godfrey, 181 Ohio App.3d 75, 2009-Ohio-547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 10-08-08 v. GODFREY, O P I N

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed July 16, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-2072 Lower Tribunal No. 04-33909

More information

Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure

Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure NOTICE 10-01-13 The following By-Laws, Manual and forms became effective August 28, 2013, and are to be used in all Disciplinary cases until further notice. Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure

More information

Hello! I am Artin DerOhanian

Hello! I am Artin DerOhanian DISCOVERY IN MUNICIPAL COURT Artin DerOhanian Senior Associate Attorney 1380 Pantheon Way, Suite 110 San Antonio, Texas 78232 (210) 257-6357 Artin.DerOhanian@rshlawfirm.com 1 Hello! I am Artin DerOhanian

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC03-1554 PER CURIAM. HENRY P. SIRECI, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [April 28, 2005] Henry P. Sireci seeks review of a circuit court order denying his motion

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. Nos. 92-CF-1039 & 95-CO-488. Appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. Nos. 92-CF-1039 & 95-CO-488. Appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

Re: PEOPLE V. Indictment No Dear Justice Wolfgang:

Re: PEOPLE V. Indictment No Dear Justice Wolfgang: Hon. PENNY WOLFGANG, J.S.C. Supreme Court 92 Franklin Street Buffalo, New York 14202- Re: PEOPLE V. Indictment No.0000000000 Dear Justice Wolfgang: Enclosed please find Defendant s Notice of Omnibus Motion

More information

Charlotte County Sheriff s Office

Charlotte County Sheriff s Office Charlotte County Sheriff s Office VICTIM RIGHTS BROCHURE YOUR RIGHTS AS A VICTIM OR WITNESS: We realize that for many persons, being a victim or witness to a crime is their first experience with the criminal

More information

S08A0002. MORRIS v. THE STATE. Following a jury trial, Alfred Morris was convicted of felony murder and

S08A0002. MORRIS v. THE STATE. Following a jury trial, Alfred Morris was convicted of felony murder and FINAL COPY 284 Ga. 1 S08A0002. MORRIS v. THE STATE. Melton, Justice. Following a jury trial, Alfred Morris was convicted of felony murder and various other offenses in connection with the armed robbery

More information

Pretrial Activities and the Criminal Trial

Pretrial Activities and the Criminal Trial C H A P T E R 1 0 Pretrial Activities and the Criminal Trial O U T L I N E Introduction Pretrial Activities The Criminal Trial Stages of a Criminal Trial Improving the Adjudication Process L E A R N I

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 93-714 Opinion Delivered June 3, 2010 JESSIE LEE BUCHANAN Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER

More information

OUTLINE OF CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS

OUTLINE OF CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS OUTLINE OF CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS What happens during a criminal case may be confusing to a victim or witness. The following summary will explain how a case generally progresses through Oklahoma s criminal

More information

Section 1983 Cases Arising from Criminal Convictions

Section 1983 Cases Arising from Criminal Convictions Touro Law Review Volume 18 Number 4 Excerpts From the Practicing Law Institute's 17th Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation Program Article 7 May 2015 Section 1983 Cases Arising from Criminal Convictions

More information

4. RELEVANCE. A. The Relevance Rule

4. RELEVANCE. A. The Relevance Rule 4. RELEVANCE A. The Relevance Rule The most basic rule of evidence is that it must be relevant to the case. Irrelevant evidence should be excluded. If we are trying a bank robbery case, the witnesses should

More information

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT LAMAR GERALD, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-1362

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 29, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-2371 Lower Tribunal No. 12-4783 M.H., a juvenile,

More information

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. Senate Bill 505

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. Senate Bill 505 79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled Senate Bill 505 Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Seventy-Seventh Report to the Court recommending

More information

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL Rule 3:26-1. Right to Pretrial Release Before Conviction (a) Persons Entitled; Standards for Fixing. (1) Persons Charged on a Complaint-Warrant

More information

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 18, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-473 Lower Tribunal No. 94-11235 Tracy McLin,

More information

STATE OF OHIO LARRY GRAY

STATE OF OHIO LARRY GRAY [Cite as State v. Gray, 2010-Ohio-5842.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94282 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LARRY GRAY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY. CASE No. 07-CR-0043

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY. CASE No. 07-CR-0043 Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Fax: 1-- Email: twood@callatg.com Attorney for Benjamin Jones IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC04-21 LOWER CASE NO.: 2D REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC04-21 LOWER CASE NO.: 2D REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RAYMOND BAUGH, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / CASE NO.: SC04-21 LOWER CASE NO.: 2D02-2758 REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Discretionary

More information

Domestic. Violence. In the State of Florida. Beware. Know Your Rights Get a Lawyer. Ruth Ann Hepler, Esq. & Michael P. Sullivan, Esq.

Domestic. Violence. In the State of Florida. Beware. Know Your Rights Get a Lawyer. Ruth Ann Hepler, Esq. & Michael P. Sullivan, Esq. Domestic Violence In the State of Florida Beware Know Your Rights Get a Lawyer Ruth Ann Hepler, Esq. & Michael P. Sullivan, Esq. Introduction You ve been charged with domestic battery. The judge is threatening

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC94072 BARRY HOFFMAN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. PER CURIAM. [July 5, 2001] REVISED OPINION Barry Hoffman, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the

More information

In the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia

In the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia In the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia Magistrate Court Case No. 13 M 3079-81 Circuit Court Appeal No. State of West Virginia - PLAINTIFF Police Officers Vernon and Yost Kanawha County

More information

State of New Hampshire. Chasrick Heredia. Docket No CR On February 8, 2019, following a jury trial, defendant, Chasrick Heredia, was

State of New Hampshire. Chasrick Heredia. Docket No CR On February 8, 2019, following a jury trial, defendant, Chasrick Heredia, was State of New Hampshire NORTHERN DISTRICT morning hours of May 11, 2018. Manchester police officers Michael Roscoe and this altercation Officer Roscoe intervened in the struggle and employed force against

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC94673 LEWIS, J. STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. BERNARD EVANS, Respondent. [October 5, 2000] We have for review the Third District Court of Appeal s decision in Evans v.

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC92496 RICKEY BERNARD ROBERTS, Appellant, Cross-Appellee, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee, Cross-Appellant. [December 5, 2002] PER CURIAM. REVISED OPINION Rickey Bernard Roberts

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANOR GUILTY PLEA FORM. 1. My true full name is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANOR GUILTY PLEA FORM. 1. My true full name is For Court Use Only 1. My true full name is 2. I understand that I am pleading GUILTY / NOLO CONTENDERE and admitting the following offenses, prior convictions and special punishment allegations, with the

More information

SECTION 2 BEFORE FILING SUIT

SECTION 2 BEFORE FILING SUIT Contents ETHICAL ISSUES IN LITIGATION... 2 HANDLING FALSE INFORMATION... 2 MR 3.3: Candor Towards the Tribunal... 3 Timing of the False Testimony Before the witness takes the stand.... 4 Under oath....

More information

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Nada M. Carey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Nada M. Carey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ANTONIO MORALES, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D13-1113 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 22, 2015. An appeal from the Circuit Court

More information

ADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1

ADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1 ADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1 1 RULE 3.1 - MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS (a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and

More information

D-R-A-F-T (not adopted; do not cite)

D-R-A-F-T (not adopted; do not cite) To: Council, Criminal Justice Section From: ABA Forensic Science Task Force Date: September 12, 2011 Re: Discovery: Lab Reports RESOLUTION: D-R-A-F-T (not adopted; do not cite) Resolved, That the American

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, DATE FILED IN OPEN COURT D.C. vs. _ Defendant. CASE NO.: / CRIMINAL DIVISION: VIOLATION OF PROBATION/COMMUNITY

More information