Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Supreme Court — Part 18
Page 127
127 / 129
4. Mitchell v, Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (6-19-85)**
~— ~ = sas a. ~— -_ =
decision no ig the absence of a final judgment.
Qualified immunity, similar to absolute immunity, is an
entitlement not to stand trial under certain circumstances. Such
entitlement ig an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense
qualified immunity is an appealable final
Ata eha aha
Lt S
¥. Evidence
A. Impeachment
1. U.S. ve. Abel, 105 S.Ct. 465 (12-10-84)
A witness in federal court may be impeached by a
showing of bias even though the Federal Rules of Evidence do not
expressly mention bias as a ground for impeachment. The Court
held that evidence showing membership of the witness and the
defendant in a secret prison gang whose members were sworn to
perjury and self-protection was sufficiently probative of the
witness” possible bias towards the defendant to warrant its
admission,
2. Luce v. U.S., 105 S.Ct. 460 (12-10-84)
To raise and preserve for review on appeal the claim of
improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must
testify. The Court held that to perform the weighing of the
prior conviction’s probative value against its prejudicial
effect, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), the
reviewing court must know the precise nature of the defendant’s
testimony. Where the defendant makes an unsuccessful pre-trial
motion to bar the prosecution from using a prior conviction and
then elects not to testify, no meaningful review of the matter is
possible, ‘
3. U.S. v. Bagley, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (7-2-85)}
; Brady v. Maryland requires the prosecution to disclose
evidence to the defense that is both favorable to the accused and
material either to guilt or punishment. In Bagley the Court held
that the government’s failure to disclose, upon request by the
defense, impeachment or other exculpatory evidence amounts to
constitutional error requiring revergaal of a conviction only if
there is a reasonable probability that, had the requested
evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the trial
would have been different. Failure to disclose does not require
automatic reversal,
r
x
10
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic