––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted September 08, 2011
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Supreme Court urged to reaffirm prosecutors' ethical disclosure obligations
In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Louisiana case of Juan Smith v. Burl Cain, Warden, the American Bar Association is asking the justices to reaffirm that a prosecutor's ethical obligations to disclose exculpatory and mitigating evidence before trial are broader than the constitutional standards established for post-trial review of non-disclosure claims under the court's 1963 Brady v. Maryland jurisprudence.
In a case involving allegations of substantial prosecutorial non-disclosures, the ABA acknowledges that the court must consider these claims post-trial under the Brady standards. However, the ABA, quoting Cone v. Bell (2009), urges the justices to again recognize that a prosecutor's pretrial disclosure obligations "may arise more broadly under a prosecutor's ethical or statutory obligations," as established by the prosecutor's state attorney regulatory body.
The brief cites three ABA authorities in support of its argument:
* ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d), which provides for disclosure regardless of materiality. Louisiana and 48 other states have adopted ethics rules that include a provision identical or similar to Model Rule 3.8(d). "Indeed, to the extent Louisiana has modified Rule 3.8(d), it has done so ... only to impose more rigorous disclosure obligations on prosecutors," according to the amicus brief, which includes an appendix listing the prosecutorial disclosure obligations of each state.
* Formal [Ethics] Opinion 09-454, "Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Evidence and Information Favorable to the Defense," which discusses the absence of a materiality requirement in Rule 3.8(d). The full text of this opinion is included as an appendix to the amicus brief.
* The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, which are based on consensus views of criminal law professionals. The standards provide for disclosure without regard to materiality.
The brief is available online at www.americanbar.org.
Published: Thu, Sep 8, 2011
headlines Oakland County
- Young Lawyers Summit
- Michigan gang member pleads guilty to RICO conspiracy for drug trafficking and over $500,000 in fraud
- Nessel reissues consumer alert on Bitcoin ATM scams
- Attorney general, senator want to see movement on social media, AI safety bills for minors
- Justice Dept., FTC extend deadline for public comment on guidance on business collaborations
headlines National
- Millions of Americans continue to lack meaningful access to justice. What can be done about it?
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Federal judge hands down $110K penalty against 2 lawyers for AI errors in court documents
- Former adult film actress passes February bar exam in Texas
- Grad sues George Washington University, Ernst & Young after Gaza ‘genocide’ remarks in commencement speech
- Magicians Penn & Teller file Supreme Court brief questioning use of ‘investigative hypnosis’




