Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson’s suggestion in his Aug. 1, 2012 letter to the editor, in response to Marvin Schechter’s column in the state bar’s Criminal Justice Section newsletter, that his office complied with its Brady obligations in People v. Waters, 571/2007, is disingenuous and simply wrong. The decision, though, is important reading for those who want to understand the Brady rule.
In Waters, the prosecutor failed to disclose a statement made by an eyewitness which was directly contrary to another statement made by that same witness which went to the heart of the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
