In a Criminal Case, Brown V

Multiple Choice

In a criminal case, Brown v. State, defense counsel moved for a mistrial because alleged Brady material [a request to be notified concerning exculpatory evidence in the hands of the prosecution] was not disclosed by the prosecution until the trial had been under way for two days. During the trial, one of the allegedly stolen items, a laptop computer, was discovered in the possession of a man named Bobbo. The prosecution made Bobbo available for trial testimony, to mitigate the newly discovered evidence. Even though the prosecution did not know of the whereabouts of the stolen laptop computer or of its existence until police notified the prosecution about the evidence of the stolen laptop, the defendant contended that his trial would be unfair if it continued. The trial judge:

A) should have granted an immediate mistrial because the prosecution has a duty to let the defense know about the existence of evidence that might point toward innocence [since it was recovered from a different person, Bobbo].
B) correctly denied the granting of a mistrial because the prosecution made every effort to mitigate the harm to the defendant's case by locating some important defense witnesses [Bobbo] who could testify concerning the missing evidence.
C) recognized that a trial is an adversarial situation and each side must find and introduce its own evidence without relying upon the other side to do its work.
D) ruled correctly because a prosecutor has no duty to tell the defense about evidence that will hurt the prosecutor's case.