HOUSTON VERSUS BOSTON

In Boston a Federal judge is threatening to sanction the U. S Attorney’s office after an assistant U. S Attorney (AUSA) failed to provide exonerating evidence to the defense, according to an article in by Altman and Altman in the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog. The AUSA failed to tell the defense that a peace officer who was an important witness in a drug case had repeatedly contradicted the police report in conversations he had with the AUSA Federal discovery law are much stricter than those of many states but the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland ruled that that exonerating evidence must be turned over to the defendant or his/her counsel. And this only makes sense. Certainly a defendant ought to have access to any evidence that can help him/her. But under the Federal regulations defendants sometimes only receive the evidence at the last moment. Therefore it is all the more important that the AUSA give the exonerating evidence to the defense. But according to Chief Federal District Judge Mark L. Wolf the Boston office of the US Attorney has repeatedly failed to turn over significant exonerating evidence and he is threatening to sanction the office or AUSA Suzanne Sullivan for her failure to inform the defense of her conversations with the officer.

At the same time Houston Texas has a new District Attorney, former judge, Pat Lykos. According to another blogger, Matthew Skillern in Greater Houston Defense Law Blog, as one of her first acts in office she announced an open file policy. While the details have not been worked out it is expected that she will allow defense attorney to view and hopefully copy everything in her files. This will allow the District Attorney and the defense to try cases on an open playing field,

Which is more likely to reach a fair decision on guilt or innocence the Boston system in which the cards are stacked against the defendant or the Houston system in which each side starts on a fair playing field.