Murtagh's withholding of the exculpatory evidence and making up of the evidence is against the law and something needs to be done about it. Personally, I think it's perverting the course of justice. To suddenly spring on the defense and jury that there were supposed to be pajama fibers on the murder weapon as a surprise, without previously informing the defense about is just plain legal trickery. The matter is discussed at this website:
Quote:
Brady’s lawyer discovered that Boblit’s statement had been withheld by the prosecution – but only after Brady had been convicted and lost his appeal.
Brady’s motion for a new trial was appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
‘Society wins when criminal trials are fair’
The 7-2 ruling, handed down May 13, 1963, said a prosecution team’s failure to turn over information violates due process when the evidence that’s withheld is material either to a defendant’s guilt or punishment. The court said this holds true irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution – meaning it doesn’t matter whether the information is withheld intentionally or not.
“Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly,” Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the court’s majority.
Atlanta criminal defense attorney Don Samuel said he has long found it hard to believe it wasn’t until 1963 when the Brady precedent became a bedrock principle of law.
“It is the one rule of discovery that assures a lack of surprise at trial,” Samuel said. “More important, its purpose is to assure that innocent people are not prosecuted and convicted.”