Difference between revisions of "Giglio v. United States"
From Conservapedia
m (spelling) |
(undeadend, cat) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''Giglio v. United States'', 405 U.S. 150, 153-54 (1972), is the leading precedent for a criminal defendant to obtain a new trial when the prosecution used misled the jury to convict him: | + | ''Giglio v. United States'', 405 U.S. 150, 153-54 (1972), is the leading [[United States Supreme Court]] precedent for a criminal [[defendant]] to obtain a new trial when the prosecution used misled the [[jury]] to convict him: |
:"deliberate deception of a court and jurors by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with 'rudimentary demands of justice'" | :"deliberate deception of a court and jurors by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with 'rudimentary demands of justice'" | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:"whether the nondisclosure was a result of negligence or design, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor" | :"whether the nondisclosure was a result of negligence or design, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor" | ||
| − | ''Id.'' at 153-54 (quoting Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935)). | + | ''Id.'' at 153-54 (quoting ''Mooney v. Holohan'', 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935)). |
[[category:United States law]] | [[category:United States law]] | ||
| + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 17:17, September 7, 2007
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54 (1972), is the leading United States Supreme Court precedent for a criminal defendant to obtain a new trial when the prosecution used misled the jury to convict him:
- "deliberate deception of a court and jurors by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with 'rudimentary demands of justice'"
- "whether the nondisclosure was a result of negligence or design, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor"
Id. at 153-54 (quoting Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935)).
