Even though defendant failed to preserve many of the errors by timely objection, the errors were so pervasive that appellant was denied a fundamentally fair and impartial trial.
Even if the prosecutor was not personally aware of the evidence, the State is not relieved of its duty to disclose because “the State” includes, in addition to the prosecutor, other lawyers and employees in his office and members of law enforcement. Strickler v.
The former Alabama attorney general worked in the 1970s to have the death penalty reinstated and joined in a friend of the court brief to intervene in Johnson's case. Baxley says he was stunned by the lack of evidence against Johnson and how the state had pushed five separate theories of how the murder occurred by four different shooters.
Cuffie (D.C. Cir. 1996): Brady violation because undisclosed evidence of witness’s prior perjury could have impeached witness, even though the witness had been impeached by a cocaine addiction, cooperation with prosecution, incentives to lie, and violation of oath as police officer. United States v.
The request must state the time, date, and place of the alleged offense. (B) the name, address, and telephone number of each alibi witness on whom the defendant intends to rely. (b) Disclosing Government Witnesses.
An alibi witness is a recognized defense in all jurisdictions in the United States, and if admitted at trial, could result in proving the innocence of a defendant and lead to their acquittal.
Alibi is considered a "factual" defense, as opposed to an "affirmative" defense.
An alibi defense, however, is not an affirmative defense and must be disproven by a prosecutor if raised by the defense. In order to successfully raise an alibi defense, it is important to present evidence showing that a defendant was somewhere else at the time a crime occurred.
In Govind v State of MP, (2005) 12 SCC 267, it was held by the Supreme Court that, The fact that the accused advanced a false plea of alibi cannot by itself be a proof of the fact that he was responsible for the offence.
In case the accused fails to prove the plea of alibi, his presence at the spot cannot be ruled out".
In criminal cases, there are usually four primary defenses used: innocence, self-defense, insanity, and constitutional violations. Each of these has their uses, and not all cases can use these defense strategies.
An alibi is not an exception envisaged in the IPC or any other law. It is a rule of evidence recognized by Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts inconsistent with fact in issue are relevant. However it cannot be the sole link or sole circumstance to bare conviction.
An alibi defense is much more powerful than a self-defense or any affirmative defense strategy. This is because an alibi can be powerful. A successful alibi is one that is strong enough to entirely rule out the defendant as the perpetrator. Sadly, alibis are difficult to prove.
Accused defense of [sic] alibi is not worthy of belief. It has been repeatedly ruled that alibi is a weak defense as it is easy to concoct and fabricate. It become weaker in the face of the positive identification of the accused by an eye witnesses [sic] with no improper motive to falsely testify.
But alibi evidence is virtually always material and exculpatory; it includes witness statements that place the defendant somewhere other than the scene of the crime and forensic evidence (like DNA) that tends to show that the defendant couldn't have committed the crime.
that there is no onus on the accused to prove an alibi; that if the jury believes the alibi evidence, they must find the accused not guilty; that even if the jury does not believe the alibi evidence, if they are left in a reasonable doubt by it, they must find the accused not guilty; and.
But if the proof of alibi has failed so to show, you will not consider it established or proved . The evidence upon that point is to he considered by the jury, and if, upon the whole case, including the evidence of an alibi, there is a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, you should acquit him.".
The Court of Appeals rejected the State's contention that any error was harmless because the jury was also instructed that the State had the burden of proving "the crime as a whole" beyond a reasonable doubt.
Petitioner was convicted, and his conviction was upheld by the Iowa Supreme Court. Contending that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to place on him the burden of proving an alibi defense, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Johnson v. Bennett, At petitioner's trial for murder in 1934, several witnesses testified that petitioner was in another city when the crime was committed. In accordance with Iowa law, the trial judge instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proof on an alibi defense.
that he was not present at the scene of the crime, the petitioner must have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not present. [ Footnote 1] The jury found petitioner guilty of second-degree murder, and petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court.
He says that in a months-long review, Carr met with witnesses, the victim's family and the lead prosecutor on the case from the 1990s. What's striking from Carr 's brief is that he says the original prosecutor has concerns about the case and supports the motion for a new trial.
The deputy was shot to death while working an off-duty security detail at a hotel in 1995. Both Johnson and the victim were Black. It was a high-profile case, with few clues and no eyewitnesses. The state put up a $5,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction.
She had never heard him speak," Baxley says. "She didn't, as we used to say when I was young in Alabama, didn't know him from Adam's house cat.". Baxley and other former state and federal prosecutors have joined in a friend of the court brief to intervene in the case.
"The records that the courts have say there is no way you can take a man's life based on what you have," says Antonio Green, Johnson's cousin who lived with him when he was arrested in the murder of Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy William Hardy. The deputy was shot to death while working an off-duty security detail at a hotel in 1995. Both Johnson and the victim were Black.
Defense witnesses gave Johnson an alibi. After a hung jury, Johnson was prosecuted a second time and convicted based on the testimony of one person — not an eyewitness but an ear witness — a woman who said she overheard a jailhouse phone conversation in which someone named Toforest said he shot a deputy.
Johnson's court-appointed defense attorney failed to call alibi witnesses in the second trial. Also, prosecutors never revealed that the ear witness got the $5,000 reward for her testimony, records of which had been misfiled until 2019. That's now the basis for Johnson's legal claim to have his conviction overturned.
Cuffie (D.C. Cir. 1996): Brady violation because undisclosed evidence of witness’s prior perjury could have impeached witness, even though the witness had been impeached by a coca ine addiction, cooperation with prosecution, incentives to lie, and violation of oath as police officer. United States v.
Bell (U.S. 2009): Observed, without specifically holding, that a prosecutor’s pre-trial obligations to disclose favorable or impeaching evidence, either to guilt or punishment, “may arise more broadly under a prosecutor’s ethical or statutory obligations” than required by the Brady/Bagley post-conviction “materiality” standard of review.
Mooney v. Holohan (U.S. 1935): Misconduct through “knowing use” of perjured testimony to convict a criminal defendant in violation of “due process” of law. Acts and omissions by a prosecutor can violate “the fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions.”
1999) found a Brady violation in a 27 year old murder case because the Government did not disclose that its chief eyewitness had originally identified someone else and identified the defendant only after several meetings with the police.
1985): Refined Brady by holding that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose material favorable evidence exists regardless of whether the defendant makes a specific request.
Phillips (2 nd Cir. 2006): Brady violation because exculpatory statement would have allowed the defense to investigate another party’s involvement. United States v. Mchaffy (2 nd Cir. 2013): Government agency reports, although inadmissible, are material and subject to disclose because they may lead to admissible evidence.
1988): Brady violation when, after request by defendant, Government does not disclose information in probation file relevant to witness’s credibility on ground that it was privileged.