January 26, 2007
Presented by: Case Western Reserve Law Review
Speakers:
Professor Bennett L. Gershman, Professor of Law, Pace Law School
Professor Michael Benza, Distinguished Practitioner of Law and Adjunct Professor, Case School of Law, The Law Office of Michael J. Benza, Inc.
Professor Alafair S. Burke, Associate Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law
John Q. Lewis, Partner, Jones Day, Cleveland
Summary: Law Review Symposium: Panel Three: Litigating Brady v. Maryland: Games Prosecutors Play to Avoid Compliance
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant's due process rights preclude a prosecutor from suppressing material evidence favorable to the defendant. Since the Court's ruling, the Brady rule has shaped the boundaries of a defendant's right to a fair trial and defined the standards of justice in the criminal system. The Case Western Reserve Law Review Symposium will explore the role of the Brady rule in various elements of a criminal case, including plea negotiations, scientific evidence and capital sentencing. Participants will also discuss the Brady rule's impact on prosecutorial ethics in the current justice system. Please join us as many of the country's leading experts examine the issues that are critical for maintaining each citizen's right to a fair and just trial.
The fact is that lots of prosecuters an investigative agents, act in an unethical way in rspects to the Brady Rule. For the most part, prosecuters are not or do not care to find justice. They are only interested in winning cases. This is because they are elected officials.They are only motivated to gain political advantage. Look at the case of Cameron Tood Willingham; The prosecuter in that case is now a judge.
quentin4221 9 months ago