skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 162996 Find in a Library
Title: Constitutional Law Due Process - Prosecutors Must Disclose Exculpatory Information When the Net Effect of the Suppressed Evidence Makes It Reasonably Probable That Disclosure Would Have Produced a Different Result (Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995))
Journal: Seton Hall Law Review  Volume:26  Issue:2  Dated:(1996)  Pages:832-865
Author(s): C L Corcoran
Date Published: 1996
Page Count: 34
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This Note examines prosecutors' responsibility to execute their position in compliance with the standards of due process.
Abstract: Due Process Clauses are incorporated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. With respect to the criminal justice system, due process mandates that the procedures used to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant comply with notions of justice and fair play. Suppression of evidence by a prosecutor undermines the credibility of the verdict because it denies the fact finder access to all of the evidence needed to make an accurate and fair determination. The Note discusses circumstances that mandate disclosure, what constitutes prejudicial errors by the prosecution, the harmless error standard, other applicable standards of law, and several United States Supreme Court decisions (and dissents thereto) regarding the prosecution's obligations under Due Process. Implementation of a standard established by one such decision may actually endanger society. It imposes a higher burden on the accused, making it more difficult to actually get a conviction reversed, conceivably resulting in upholding the convictions of innocent people. Footnotes
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Court procedures; Evidence; Judicial decisions; Judicial process; Prosecution; Right to Due Process; Rights of the accused; Trial materials disclosure; Trial procedures; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.