Difference between revisions of "Newly discovered evidence"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Bold) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 proves the lie. | 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 proves the lie. | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:United States Law]] |
Revision as of 10:22, April 7, 2008
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 proves the lie.