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.
In the adversarial model of American jurisprudence, the prosecutor's job is to make the most rigorous case he can to convict, just as it is the defense's job to defend with all the rigor at his disposal. The presumption is that, by creating such an atmosphere, the truth will eventually out.
I agree that it is not the best model in the world. It is only better than anything else so far practiced.
Yes, the prosecution is obligated to reveal all RELEVANT evidence. But if he deems the evidence irrelevant or of dubious credibility, he may opt to not reveal it at all. That is his prerogative, and a sharp defense attorney will pursue ALL the evidence, regardless of whether the prosecution considers it relevant or not.
What this prosecutor did was a breach of the Canon, but does not rise to the level of a crime. In my opinion ...