Replies

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned Harrington's conviction in February, based on new evidence that prosecutors withheld police reports pointing to another suspect

Are they required to present those? Precisely what procedural rule was violated there?

and that the state's key witness had recanted his testimony.

Does that mean he didn't do it? How many witnesses did not recant? I wish they'd provide a few more facts.

"Are they required to present those? Precisely what procedural rule was violated there?"

It's part of a process called discovery. All parties are supposed to be interested in justice. Before trial the opposing sides are required to turn over all relevant info. Relevant means at least one party thinks it is. That way the withholding of evidence should not occur. For the particulars, the rules of the jurisdiction you're interested in should be looked at.

"Are they required to present those?"

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution is to provide any excuplatory evidence in a case. Remember, he was innocent until proven guilty and it would seem that there was evidence showing just that. See Rules of Criminal Procedure 15.1 (This is the Arizona Rule but I suspect most states use the same standards).

Failure to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense is, and should be, a "get out jail free" card. Short of perjury by police or other prosecution witnesses, it is the gravest intentional violation of a defendant's rights, and always has been thought of as such, long before Miranda and the like started to protect criminals from their own confessions and other incriminating conduct.

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned Harrington's conviction in February, based on new evidence that prosecutors withheld police reports pointing to another suspect

I am usually against more laws & regulation, but we need a new one here. The original prosecutors and all LE personnel who knew about the police reports but did not bring them up should be immediately jailed for a period of time equal to the defendant's original conviction.

Sure we should have a trial to see if they really did commit this crime, but they get to sit in jail while the trial is being conducted.

The prosecution has all the resources of the government behind it, including as much police time & manpower as they can get. Plus, when asked to produce records and evidence, the public generally cooperates with LE much more than with a defendant.

Defendant has limited resources and usually can not even gather evidence for himself because he is in jail.

Discovery is supposed to make things more even, but even if the rules are followed, it frequently does not.

In cases where the prosecution has deliberately flaunted the rules there should be a huge penalty.