Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Actual innocence (1)
- Attorney-client Communications (1)
- Attorney-client Privilege (1)
- Biological material (1)
- Brady Rule (1)
-
- Brady Violations (1)
- Brady v. Maryland (1)
- D.C. Court of Appeals (1)
- DNA (1)
- DNA testing (1)
- DOJ (1)
- Demonstrate (1)
- Department of Justice (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- District of Columbia (1)
- Dna testing statutes (1)
- Exculpatory Evidence (1)
- Government Surveillance of E-mails between Attorneys and Inmates (1)
- Hood v. United States (1)
- IPA (1)
- Inadmissible Evidence (1)
- Inmate Communications (1)
- Inmate’s Expectation of Privacy (1)
- Innocence Protection Act (1)
- Monitoring Inmate Communications (1)
- Post-conviction (1)
- Prison E-mail (1)
- Privileged Communications (1)
- Prosecutor (1)
- Right to Counsel (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Federal Criminal Defendants Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire? Brady And The United States Attorney’S Office, Vida B. Johnson
Federal Criminal Defendants Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire? Brady And The United States Attorney’S Office, Vida B. Johnson
Catholic University Law Review
The Supreme Court decided Brady v. Maryland in an effort to ensure fair trials and fair outcomes. The Brady decision requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding guilt of the defendant. The Brady rule is meant to ensure innocent defendants are not convicted for crimes they did not commit. This rule should have unanimous support from both prosecution and defense teams, and yet Brady violations continue to occur within prosecutor offices around the country.
No offender highlights the short comings of the current system more so than the United States Attorney’s Office. Since the Brady decision, the USAO has repeated …
Inmates’ E-Mails With Their Attorneys: Off-Limits For The Government?, Amelia H. Barry
Inmates’ E-Mails With Their Attorneys: Off-Limits For The Government?, Amelia H. Barry
Catholic University Law Review
The attorney-client privilege is vital to inmates who otherwise have limited opportunities for private communications in prison. Traditionally, inmates have only been able to communicate with their attorneys via in-person visits, phone calls, and mailed letters. As federal inmates have begun using e-mail to converse with their attorneys, courts have had to determine if these conversations are protected by the attorney-client privilege. This Comment discusses courts’ approaches to this question, many of which have found that inmates’ e-mail communications with their attorneys are not privileged because by using the federal prison e-mail system, which warns users that conversations can be …
Can’T Touch This? Making A Place For Touch Dna In Post-Conviction Dna Testing Statutes, Victoria Kawecki
Can’T Touch This? Making A Place For Touch Dna In Post-Conviction Dna Testing Statutes, Victoria Kawecki
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.
No Secrets Allowed: A Prosecutor’S Obligation To Disclose Inadmissible Evidence, Abigail B. Scott
No Secrets Allowed: A Prosecutor’S Obligation To Disclose Inadmissible Evidence, Abigail B. Scott
Catholic University Law Review
No abstract provided.