
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1068622
Mandatory disclosure of evidence and double jeopardy are considered to be among the most important bulwarks against prosecutorial misconducts. While protecting the generality of defendants in the criminal process, we show that under certain reasonable assumptions, these procedural mechanisms hurt innocent defendants by inducing prosecutors to adjust their behavior and thus triggering adverse practices.
double jeopardy, disclosure, evidence, prosecutor, defendant, criminal procedure, jel: jel:K14, jel: jel:K41, jel: jel:K42
double jeopardy, disclosure, evidence, prosecutor, defendant, criminal procedure, jel: jel:K14, jel: jel:K41, jel: jel:K42
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
