Difference between revisions of "Newly discovered evidence"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Newly discovered evidence''' is the basis for many motions by criminal [[defendant]]s to obtain a new [[trial]]. | '''Newly discovered evidence''' is the basis for many motions by criminal [[defendant]]s to obtain a new [[trial]]. | ||
| − | There are formidable legal doctrines, however, that prevent defendants from obtaining a new trial even if they prove that a key witness against them committed perjury. For example, the "[v]eracity of witnesses may not be tested for a second time and by an appellate tribunal." ''United States v. Rutkin'', 208 F.2d 647, 654 (3d Cir. 1953). If the defendant challenged a witness's testimony at the first trial, then this doctrine precludes the defendant from challenging it again in a request for a new [[trial]], even if newly discovered evidence | + | There are formidable legal doctrines, however, that prevent defendants from obtaining a new trial even if they prove that a key witness against them committed perjury. For example, the "[v]eracity of witnesses may not be tested for a second time and by an appellate tribunal." ''United States v. Rutkin'', 208 F.2d 647, 654 (3d Cir. 1953). If the defendant challenged a witness's testimony at the first trial, then this doctrine precludes the defendant from challenging it again in a request for a new [[trial]], even if newly discovered evidence shows that testimony delivered during the first trial was incorrect. |
[[Category:United States Law]] | [[Category:United States Law]] | ||
[[category:Evidence]] | [[category:Evidence]] | ||
Revision as of 11:29, October 7, 2013
Newly discovered evidence is the basis for many motions by criminal defendants to obtain a new trial.
There are formidable legal doctrines, however, that prevent defendants from obtaining a new trial even if they prove that a key witness against them committed perjury. For example, the "[v]eracity of witnesses may not be tested for a second time and by an appellate tribunal." United States v. Rutkin, 208 F.2d 647, 654 (3d Cir. 1953). If the defendant challenged a witness's testimony at the first trial, then this doctrine precludes the defendant from challenging it again in a request for a new trial, even if newly discovered evidence shows that testimony delivered during the first trial was incorrect.