NCJ Number
154218
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 31 Issue: 2 Dated: (March-April 1995) Pages: 99-112
Date Published
1995
Length
14 pages
Annotation
Rules of evidence are designed to bring about just and informed decisions; the hearsay rule, in particular, is designed to ensure that juries receive reliable evidence and that out-of- court statements are ordinarily inadmissible.
Abstract
Prosecutors are well aware of evidentiary restrictions but occasionally seek to circumvent them, even though prosecutor trial functions are regulated by constitutional, statutory, common law, and ethical proscriptions that seek to minimize prejudice to the defendant and ensure that he or she receives a fair trial. Virtually every Federal circuit and many State courts do not allow prosecutors to introduce evidence under the guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive evidence that is not otherwise admissible. Trial judges are responsible for supervising an attorney's conduct at trial and for closely monitoring tactics that may subvert a fair trial. Nonetheless, some prosecutors attempt to subvert the hearsay evidence rule under the guise of eliciting sham "background" information about the history of the investigation. Closely related to the improper introduction of background information to circumvent the hearsay rule are situations where the prosecutor elicits testimony that insinuates the defendant is guilty. The prosecutor's conduct should not violate the defendant's sixth amendment right to a fair trial and his or her right to due process. Deliberate misconduct by the prosecutor in a close case should be an aggravating factor for reversal. 51 footnotes