翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Sinclair ・ R v Skinner ・ R v Smith (1900) ・ R v Smith (1987) ・ R v Smith (1992) ・ R v Smith (Thomas Joseph) ・ R v Soqokomashe ・ R v Sparrow ・ R v Spencer ・ R v Starr ・ R v Steane ・ R v Stephens ・ R v Stevens ・ R v Steyn ・ R v Stillman ・ R v Stinchcombe ・ R v Stone ・ R v Storrey ・ R v Strachan ・ R v Suberu ・ R v Sullivan ・ R v Sullivan (Canada) ・ R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy ・ R v Swain ・ R v Symonds ・ R v Tang ・ R v Terry ・ R v Tessling ・ R v Therens ・ R v Thomas Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Stinchcombe ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Stinchcombe ''R v Stinchcombe'', () 3 S.C.R. 326 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure of evidence in a trial and is considered by most to be one of the most significant criminal law cases of the decade. The Court found that the Crown had a duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, regardless of whether the Crown plans to call that evidence at trial or not, or whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case. This case put to rest the long-standing issue of whether the Crown could purposely deny the defence evidence that the Crown found would be harmful to their case. ==Background== William Stinchcombe was a lawyer who was charged with theft and fraud. One of the Crown's witnesses was a former secretary of Stinchcombe's who had given evidence at the preliminary inquiry that supported the defence's position. Later a statement was taken from her by an RCMP officer, however, at trial the defence was denied access to the contents of the statement. When the Crown decided not to use the statement the defence made a request for it to the judge who refused to provide it. The accused was eventually convicted. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Stinchcombe」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.