Difference between revisions of "Discovery"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 13: Line 13:
 
Originally discovery procedures were advocated by defense attorneys who argued that due process required some discovery because the prosecution had an unfair advantage in investigation because of his access to police and other state-based resources. However, as discovery expanded, prosecutors began to argue that discovery should go both ways. Today there are discovery procedures that both sides must comply with and in some jurisdictions there is even [[Open File Discovery]]
 
Originally discovery procedures were advocated by defense attorneys who argued that due process required some discovery because the prosecution had an unfair advantage in investigation because of his access to police and other state-based resources. However, as discovery expanded, prosecutors began to argue that discovery should go both ways. Today there are discovery procedures that both sides must comply with and in some jurisdictions there is even [[Open File Discovery]]
  
===Defendant's Discovery Obligations===
+
===Prosecution's Discovery Obligations===
 
In Williams v. Florida<Ref>Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)<Ref> the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute which required defense attorneys to provide notice of an alibi defense upon written demand of the prosecution. Defendants argued that the statute was unconstitutional becuase it violated the defendants privilege against self-incrimination and foreclosed a legitimate defense if the defendant failed to comply with the discovery. Broadly read, the case upheld other discovery provisions.
 
In Williams v. Florida<Ref>Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)<Ref> the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute which required defense attorneys to provide notice of an alibi defense upon written demand of the prosecution. Defendants argued that the statute was unconstitutional becuase it violated the defendants privilege against self-incrimination and foreclosed a legitimate defense if the defendant failed to comply with the discovery. Broadly read, the case upheld other discovery provisions.
  
 
===Discovery that the PRosecution must provide the Defendant===
 
===Discovery that the PRosecution must provide the Defendant===

Revision as of 14:33, 12 August 2010

Background

Discovery is the process by which a prosecutor, court investigator, judge and defendant share information. The purpose of discovery is to eliminate "trial by surprise", increase efficiency in court proceedings by focusing the trial on the factual disputes between parties, and produce fairer and more accurate outcomes.

Opponents have argued that increased discovery provides the material and the incentive for defendants to custom tailor their testimony to the prosecution's evidence and would give defendants the opportunity to harass potential witnesses in advance of trial.

Discovery in Civil Law Systems

Discovery in the civil law systems is dramatically simplified in comparison to the hodge podge of common law rules associaited with common law jurisdictions such as the United States. In France, for instance, the defense attorney may review the entire "dossier" during several phases of the investigatory stage of the criminal justice proceedings. Although the exact rules on when a defendant can review the dossier varies in France depending on the court, the general rule is that the defense may review the entire file prior to trial.

Discovery in Common Law Systems

Prior to the 1930s, pre-trial discovery was rarely ordered by the courts and only came about by a process of mutual agreement between the prosecution and the criminal defense attorney. However, after the 1930s many states began to fashion discovery statutes which provided for compulsory discovery measures. These statutes, which borrowed heavily from civil law discovery procedures, provide for discovery from both the prosecution and the defense.

Originally discovery procedures were advocated by defense attorneys who argued that due process required some discovery because the prosecution had an unfair advantage in investigation because of his access to police and other state-based resources. However, as discovery expanded, prosecutors began to argue that discovery should go both ways. Today there are discovery procedures that both sides must comply with and in some jurisdictions there is even Open File Discovery

Prosecution's Discovery Obligations

In Williams v. Florida<Ref>Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)<Ref> the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute which required defense attorneys to provide notice of an alibi defense upon written demand of the prosecution. Defendants argued that the statute was unconstitutional becuase it violated the defendants privilege against self-incrimination and foreclosed a legitimate defense if the defendant failed to comply with the discovery. Broadly read, the case upheld other discovery provisions.

Discovery that the PRosecution must provide the Defendant