It is not the prosecutor’s job to build the defense’s case. In Discovery, the parties are supposed to disclose all relevant information concerning the case. The operative word there being “relevant.”. If a DA thought the evidence was sufficiently exculpatory to jeopardize his case, then he probably shouldn’t have prosecuted it to begin with. To withhold it violates the Canon, and can result in mistrial, loss on appeal, and censure.
The defense should have destroyed this girl’s testimony, which shouldn’t have been hard to do in view of her history.
The defense should have destroyed this girl’s testimony, which shouldn’t have been hard to do in view of her history.
______________________________________________________________
I'm sorry to have to strongly disagree with you but, in this country the prosecution has to share ALL evidence found during an investigation, it is the law. The prosecutor broke the law and because of it an innocent man spent a quarter century in prison.
The stated purpose of prosecutors is to find the truth, not put people in jail. If the truth finds someone guilty of crime then the prosecutors job is to present the evidence to a judge or jury and then punish the criminal. If the evidence points to innocence of the accused the prosecutor has an obligation under law to work to free the accused.
Unfortunately our justice system has evolved into whoever puts the most people in prison has the most respect from his peers.
Our system of prosecution is better than most of the world but has many problems and flaws.