By Anna Mumford, Albany Government Law Review
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, â€œ[n]o State. . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.â€ As a cornerstone principle of the criminal justice system, this constitutional right requires the government to disclose all favorable evidence within their control to a criminal defendant. However, all too often in this country, prosecutors have suppressed key evidence that could potentially exonerate a defendant. Even right here, in the great Capital City, there have been instances where the accused have been deprived of the right to due process and a fair trial.
In October 2009, two local Albany men were indicted by the Grand Jury for murder, facing life in prison without the possibility of parole. Their case was scheduled to begin on November 1, 2010. However, during a pre-trial hearing, only four days before opening statemen…
Language:Choose the language in which you want to experience Scribd:DownloadGo BackCommentEmbedReadcastTweetBrady MotionCause No: __________ Date: ___________DISCOVERY MOTION- "BRADY" INCONSISTENT EVIDENCETO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:NOW COMES THE DEFENDANT, under the authority of Article 39.14 of the TexasCode of Criminal Procedure, Article 1, Sections 10, 19, and 29 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of theUnited States of America, and the doctrine of Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 and Means vsState, 429 S.W.2d 490, and makes this motion for discovery and moves the Court to order theState of Texas, by and through her prosecuting attorney, to produce the material and informationdesignated below, and permit the Defendant to inspect, copy, or photograph such items.PART ATHE STANDARDS WITH ILLUSTRATIONSI.The suppression by the prosecution of evid…
SPECIAL DIRECTIVE 02-07
POSSIBLE BRADY MATERIAL IN THE
POSSESSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
December 7, 2002
THIS SPECIAL DIRECTIVE SUPERSEDES SD 02-04
On May 13, 2002, this office issued a comprehensive Brady policy set forth in Special Directive 02-04 and Special Directive 02-05. At that time, the Brady Alert System was being developed. In the intervening time, the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court have given us additional guidance through their decisions.
Full compliance with constitutionally required discovery under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, must include a method of identifying and accessing possible Brady material in the possession of law enforcement. Therefore, in conjunction with SD 02-08, which sets forth office policy for handling Brady material known within the Office of the District Attorney, this policy addresses possible Brady material which may be in the possession of law enforcement. This policy fulfills prosecutorial obligations while protecting th…
A pretrial motion is a document asking that a judge take some action.
A pretrial motion should say what facts support it.
A pretrial motion may, in some districts, say what law supports it, but in some districts the local rules require the law supporting a motion to be in a separate document, called a brief in support of the motion.
Many lawyers, in that special way they have (especially if they call themselves "attorney" or "esquire"), lard their motions with lots of "said court" and "wherefore, premises considered" language, but a motion can be as simple as "Dear Judge: please do x because y. Thank you." In fact, many judges prefer motions in plain English to motions in lawyer speak.
Attached to each pretrial motion should be an order for the judge to sign if he decides to do what we have asked him to do.
A few specific motions:
Motion for Discovery