skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

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: 30770 Find in a Library
Title: EFFECT OF DUE PROCESS ON CRIMINAL DEFENSE DISCOVERY (FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS REIVEW, 1974 BY JON S SCHULTZ AND JON P THAMES - SEE NCJ-30751)
Author(s): B NAKELL
Corporate Author: William S Hein and Co, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1974
Page Count: 33
Sponsoring Agency: William S Hein and Co, Inc
Buffalo, NY 14209
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE INFLUENCE OF TWO 1973 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE FORMULATION OF DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHING TWO CRITICAL DEVICES OF DEFENSE DISCOVERY - FILE DISCLOSURE AND DEPOSITIONS.
Abstract: IN WARDIUS V. OREGON, THE COURT STRUCK DOWN ENFORCEMENT OF AN OREGON NOTICE-OF-ALIBI STATUTE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THE ABSENCE OF RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY AS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS. WARDIUS AND ITS EFFECT ON ALIBI EVIDENCE IS DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO THE DUE PROCESS RECIPROCITY DECISION, RECIPROCITY AND THE PROSECUTOR'S FORMAL DISCOVERY, AND RECIPRICITY AND THE PROSECUTOR'S INVESTIGATIVE DISCOVERY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT BY NOT LIMITING DEFENSE DISCOVERY TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATIVE DISCOVERY, THE RECIPROCITY PRINCIPLE IN WARDIUS CAN FORM THE BASIS FOR FULL FILE DISCLOSURE IF ANY INFORMATION IS GIVEN TO THE PROSECUTION BY THE DEFENDANT. IN GAGNON V. SCARPELLI, THE COURT RULED THAT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS MANDATED FOR PAROLEES IN THE 1972 DECISION OF MORRISSEY V. BREWER MUST LIKEWISE BE PROVIDED IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING GIVEN A PREVIOUSLY SENTENCED PROBATIONER. THE PRELIMINARY OR PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING, WHEN PROVIDED, IS THE STAGE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS THAT SUPPLIES A DEFENDANT WITH HIS ONLY PRETRIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPULSORY PROCESS TO INTERROGATE UNWILLING WITNESS, TO TALK TO HIM VOLUNTARILY, THAT IS, FOR DEPOSITIONS. YET WITHOUT A PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED BY GAGNON AND MORRISSEY FOR PROBATION AND PAROLE REVOCATION ARE NOT PROVIDED A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS, THEREFORE, BY EXTRAPOLATION, THAT BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES OF SECRET GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS (IN TERMS OF THE MINIMAL ATTRIBUTES OF A DUE PROCESS HEARING), A PRELIMINARY HEARING WITH THE FULL TRAPPINGS OF DUE PROCESS MUST BE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO - OR INSTEAD OF - THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDING.
Index Term(s): Defense counsel; Grand juries; Judicial decisions; Parole; Pretrial discovery; Probation; Revocation; Right to Due Process; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=30770

*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.