Abstract
This Note argues for the implementation of bright-line rules to guide prosecutorial discretion. It urges a solution that identifies the salient facts from the case law and enumerates those facts into a codified Strickler three-prong standard. A bright-line standard should exist requiring disclosure when any of the following scenarios are present: (1) Prior perjury or false testimony of a government witness; (2) Promises of immunity to a government witness; (3) Monetary rewards to key government witnesses; (4) Mental impairments of a government witness; (5) Information reflecting bias or prejudice of a government witness against defendant; (6) Confessions to the crime by others; and (7) Inconsistent or contradictory scientific tests. Such bright-line disclosure rules will confine a prosecutor’s discretion within substantive, clear lines by enumerating uniform and demonstrable standards that would require disclosure. Doing so will reduce the opportunity for cognitive bias to creep into a prosecutor’s decisionmaking process. By counteracting the cognitive bias inherent in the present standard, a codified solution would prevent unintentional under-disclosure and, ultimately, ensure a defendant’s constitutional rights are better preserved.
Recommended Citation
Nathan A. Frazier,
Amending for Justice’s Sake: Codified Disclosure Rule Needed to Provide Guidance to Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose,
63 Fla. L. Rev.
771
(2011).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol63/iss3/6
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Legislation Commons