Before trial, both sides must exchange all the evidence they intend to present at trial. If they don’t include [whatever] in what they exchange, then that [whatever] is inadmissible at the trial. This is called “discovery”.
The goal of a trial is to find the truth then apply the law to that truth. Which is best performed when both sides can prepare rebuttals against the other side’s evidence. Trial by surprise ambush makes for great TV. But makes for lousy justice. Which is why we don’t do it that way.
There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction
According to many sites and lawyers in the interwebtubes, that is not true in the US. The defense does not have to give the prosecution anything. So I expanded my search to the UK rules and yep, that’s how they do it in the UK.
Statutory requirements
In the defence statement, the accused should:
set out the nature of the defence, including any particular defences on which the accused intends to rely;
indicate the matters of fact on which the accused takes issue with the prosecution;
outline, in the case of each such matter, why the accused takes issue with the prosecution;
set out particulars of matters of fact on which he intends to rely for the purposes of his defence;
indicate any point of law (including any point as to the admissibility of evidence or an abuse of process) which the accused wishes to take, and any authority on which he or she intends to rely for that purpose; and
comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State as to the details of matters that are to be included in defence statements.
If the defence statement discloses an alibi, the accused must give particulars of the alibi in the statement, including:
the name, address, and date of birth of any witness the accused believes is able to give evidence in support of the alibi, or as many of those details as are known to the accused when the statement is given; and
any information in the accused's possession which might be of material assistance in identifying or finding any such witness if the above details are not known to the accused when the statement is given.
I’m not sure where you got that. The defense doesn’t have to present anything at trial. But if they do they have to provide discovery to the prosecution. The exact details vary from court to court but at a minimum it means a list of witnesses, any statements the witnesses made and any real evidence.
English law currently requires defendant going to trial to disclose the ‘general line of defence’ his legal team proposes to take. It was not always like that.
True for civil trials, but there are different rules in criminal cases.
I found this from an attorney in Utah and it’s like @Loach said.
3. What the defense has to share with the prosecution:
Rule 16 requires the defense to share certain evidence with the prosecution. This includes information required by other Utah laws. For example, Utah law requires the defense to provide notice to the prosecutor in writing the intention to claim alibi. This written notice must be completed at least 10 days before trial. This law can be found here: Alibi Notice Requirements. Similarly, the law requires the defense to tell the prosecutor at least 30 days before trial if the defense plans to offer evidence that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. This law can be found here: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity.
The defense also has to make certain disclosures to the prosecution before trial. Rule 16 requires the defense to share a written list of names and contact information for all witnesses the defense plans to call at trial. The rule also requires the defense to share exhibits that will be used at trials. These disclosures must be made at least 14 days before trial.
(Note that in Utah, the intent to use an alibi must be provided to the prosecutor in writing at least 10 days before the trial. It is not required in Utah to provide it immediately after the arrest. )
Yeah I’m pretty skeptical too. I get you can’t just pull it out in court (and the evidence… badum-cha ) to gasps all round Hollywood style. But if the defense suddenly discovers massively exculpatory evidence half way through a trial they would ask the judge if they could enter it, who almost certainly say yes (after giving the prosecution the chance to examine it). Though IANAL of course.
In fact imagine rather than carry on the prosecution would simply drop the charges.
Okay, yeah, I get that. I guess I was thinking about staying quiet during interrogation and investigation, and not being able to bring up your alibi once you’ve spoken with your lawyer and gotten your head straight. Waiting until you’re already on the witness stand to pull out your alibi and surprise the prosecutor would obviously be an issue.
Though I could imagine some situations where that reasoning might be stretched. Amnesia, or maybe you were at bar one and so drunk you thought you were at bar two, and the people who could verify that didn’t let you know until much later, or whatever.
Yeah I don’t like that. Earlier this year Missouri executed a known innocent prisoner whose sentence judges refused to overturn, despite his innocence being proven in court. “My hands are tied, there’s nothing I can do” is the bane of every society.
That would be a bad situation if it worked that way. Staying silent through arrest and interrogation and investigation and talking only to your lawyer is totally the way to go.
As noted by others above, exactly how the prosecution and defense handle sharing evidence pre-trial and during the trial if further outside sleuthing digs up a late surprise varies between criminal and civil, and varies state to state.
But the broad idea of “no surprises in court” applies. Which is very different from “You must spill all your beans to the cops when they ask. Which they will.”
I had to Google this, and it looks like you are referring to Marcellus Williams, accused of the murder of Felicia Gayle.
Setting aside the other facts of this particular case, I found this point quite interesting: the defense found foreign male DNA on the murder weapon, but that was later found to be from a prosecutor who had mishandled the evidence. That’s a decent answer to “why doesn’t DNA evidence result in immediate release”…because they need to sort this things out properly.
That’s one thing (feckin’ ridiculous, maybe) but it’s not what we are taking about here. It’s not new evidence being brought up after conviction but in the middle of the trial. I don’t think it would usually be denied. It would have to go through the proper process (telling the judge, who would show it to the prosecution and give them the chance to find fault with) but I think it would be allowed. Though IANAL
If there was an excusable reason for the late discovery, I agree with you that the judge would try to find a way to allow the defense to use it. It might require a short delay, but that happens from time to time any way (I lost a week of trial once because a juror or two had COVID). But certainly the defense would have to make a motion, explain the circumstances, and ask for relief from the deadlines.
) to gasps all round Hollywood style. But if the defense suddenly discovers massively exculpatory evidence half way through a trial they would ask the judge if they could enter it, who almost certainly say yes (after giving the prosecution the chance to examine it). Though IANAL of course.