A gripping tale across time that exposes what’s at stake when prosecutors conceal evidence—and what we can do about it The Brady rule was meant to transform the justice system. In soaring language, the Supreme Court decreed in 1963 that prosecutors must share favorable evidence with criminal defendants. But reality intervened. The opinion faced many challenges, including being poorly reasoned, having shaky precedent, and, significantly, clashing with the foundations of the established system. When Innocence Is Not Enough chronicles the Brady rule’s sudden, unexpected birth and its slow, awful corruption. Alongside that legal history it tells the story of Catherine Fuller’s 1984 murder, which DC police called the city’s most violent crime ever. Eight young Black men went to jail for life after the prosecutor, afraid of losing the biggest case of his life, hid information that would have proven their innocence. After being heard in 2019, it remains the last Brady-related case the Supreme Court has considered. When Innocence Is Not Enough examines the various attempts at Brady law reform, and why they have—for the most part—failed. It ends with a discussion of the most likely path to success, including two promising pieces of legislation in North Carolina and Texas, and why reviving and enforcing the rule is so essential. Despite its flaws and failures, Brady is still the central criminal procedure rule that spells out a prosecutor’s duty to conduct trials fairly. Its breakdown has had an enormous, negative impact on the justice system.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.