Misconduct in the courtroom, whether committed by the defense or the prosecution, not only defies the laws put forth by our Founding Fathers and violates God’s will, but it is also a direct violation of the public’s trust in the criminal justice system. The results can be devastating, and have far reaching effects inside and outside of the courtroom. Being truthful is covered extensively in the Bible, beginning with the Ten Commandments and in verses such as 2 Timothy 2:15 which discusses unashamedly presenting yourself to God by rightly handling the word of truth.
When a prosecutor hides or destroys evidence, not only are they infringing on the constitutional rights of due process and those provided to the victim, but they are also violating God’s commands. While it is fair to prosecute with urgency and firmness, it is as much the prosecution’s duty to refrain from using “improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to …show more content…
Maryland dealt with the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense, Giglio v. United States (1972) deals with the prosecution withholding information from the jurors. According to Judge (2005), the case expands the sharing of exculpatory information with defense to include any promises the prosecution made to witnesses that might put their credibility into question. The case revolves around the testimony of one of the coconspirators in which both the witness and the prosecution indicated that no promises of a lenient sentence or non-indictment had been given. This was found to be false, and the coconspirator’s “credibility as a witness was therefore an important issue in the case, and evidence of any understanding or agreement as to a future prosecution would be relevant to his credibility and the jury was entitled to know of it” (Giglio v. United States, 1972). Based on these findings, the original conviction was reversed and Giglio was granted a new
When a prosecutor hides or destroys evidence, not only are they infringing on the constitutional rights of due process and those provided to the victim, but they are also violating God’s commands. While it is fair to prosecute with urgency and firmness, it is as much the prosecution’s duty to refrain from using “improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to …show more content…
Maryland dealt with the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense, Giglio v. United States (1972) deals with the prosecution withholding information from the jurors. According to Judge (2005), the case expands the sharing of exculpatory information with defense to include any promises the prosecution made to witnesses that might put their credibility into question. The case revolves around the testimony of one of the coconspirators in which both the witness and the prosecution indicated that no promises of a lenient sentence or non-indictment had been given. This was found to be false, and the coconspirator’s “credibility as a witness was therefore an important issue in the case, and evidence of any understanding or agreement as to a future prosecution would be relevant to his credibility and the jury was entitled to know of it” (Giglio v. United States, 1972). Based on these findings, the original conviction was reversed and Giglio was granted a new