PROSECUTOR'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE RECONSIDERED

• NCJ Number: 41238
• Journal: Washington University Law Quarterly Volume: 1976 Issue: 3 Dated: (SUMMER 1976) Pages: 480-492
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 13 pages
• Corporate Author: Washington University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

REVIEW OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING IN U.S. V AGURS (1976) WHICH EXTENDED THE PROSECUTOR'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHILE ADOPTING A STRINGENT STANDARD OF MATERIALITY.

Abstract

IN AGURS, THE COURT HELD THAT WHILE DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A PROSECUTOR TO VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSE TO THE DEFENSE EXCULPATORY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THE STANDARD OF MATERIALITY IS WHETHER THE UNDISCLOSED EVIDENCE, EVALUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL RECORD, CREATES IN THE MIND OF THE REVIEWING JUDGE A REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE. THE AUTHOR EXAMINES PREVIOUS DUE PROCESS/DISCLOSURE CASE LAW AS A MEANS OF FURTHER DETERMINING THE IMPLICATIONS OF AGURS. HE CONCLUDES THAT THE STANDARD OF MATERIALITY DEVELOPED IN THE INSTANT RULING IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GUARD AGAINST ERRONEOUS CONVICTIONS; IT DOES NOT BALANCE THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTFINDING FUNCTION AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS; AND IT PROVIDES INSUFFICIENT CHECKS ON BAD FAITH NONDISCLOSURES BY PROSECUTORS.(AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...EB