NCJ Number
203381
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 72 Issue: 11 Dated: November 2003 Pages: 25-32
Date Published
November 2003
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article examines how due process impacts the judicial discovery process and police officers with credibility problems.
Abstract
Several court cases, including 1959’s Napue v. Illinois, 1963’s Brady v. Maryland, and Giglio v. United States, are recounted to demonstrate the importance and requirements of fundamental fairness required by the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution. The cases illustrate the importance of honesty in the criminal justice process and the parameters of the discovery process in a court of law. Limits on the discovery process are defined through an analysis of Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that only evidence that may have a “reasonable probability” of affecting the outcome of the case is required under the due process clause. The case of McMillian v. Johnson is recounted to illustrate the consequences, in terms of personal liability, for law enforcement officers who intentionally withhold information that falls under the due process clause. Finally, the article discusses issues related to the release of police officer personnel file information related to the discovery process. In closing, the authors assert that when police officers knowingly withhold information that is favorable to a criminal defendant, they not only violate a defendant’s right to due process, they also permanently damage their credibility as a courtroom witness. Endnotes