From WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show and the WNYC Newsroom, comprehensive coverage and analysis of the November 2006 shooting of Sean Bell and subsequent trial; including community reaction, commentary and an exclusive interview with NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly.
When asked about why the prosecution team chose to put on conflicting witnesses, one of the speakers (not the DA himself - I watched it on NY1) said that to do otherwise would have invited accusations of suppressing "exculpatory evidence," which can be cause for reversal.
I don't know if this was a simple mistaken phrasing or an accidental revelation. Either way, the prosecutor's duty to produce exculpatory evidence is only to the defense team, not to the judge or jury.
Assuming they genuinely felt that the contradictory accounts was "exculpatory," the question is: Why did the prosecutors decide to present those witnesses in the people's case, rather than leave it to the defense to call them?
The only reason I can think of is that they believed the contradictory witnesses would never speak to defense lawyers, much less agree to give their full, detailed, and sometimes conflicting versions of events on the stand.
Apr. 27 2008 05:12 AM
Score: 0/0
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
posting.
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
Privacy Policy and
Terms Of Use.
Comments [1]
When asked about why the prosecution team chose to put on conflicting witnesses, one of the speakers (not the DA himself - I watched it on NY1) said that to do otherwise would have invited accusations of suppressing "exculpatory evidence," which can be cause for reversal.
I don't know if this was a simple mistaken phrasing or an accidental revelation. Either way, the prosecutor's duty to produce exculpatory evidence is only to the defense team, not to the judge or jury.
Assuming they genuinely felt that the contradictory accounts was "exculpatory," the question is: Why did the prosecutors decide to present those witnesses in the people's case, rather than leave it to the defense to call them?
The only reason I can think of is that they believed the contradictory witnesses would never speak to defense lawyers, much less agree to give their full, detailed, and sometimes conflicting versions of events on the stand.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.