<u>The purpose of the new mandatory discovery provisions is to: remove the element of surprise from litigation. make litigation more of a quest for the truth. minimize discovery times and costs</u>
Explanation:
<u>Discovery </u>refers to the process of exchanging the information between the parties involved in a trial.The prosecution and the defense build their respective cases based on the evidences available.The information exchanged includes
- Physical evidences
- Witness statement
- Police interrogation data
- List of the witnesses
The biggest change to the Discovery provision is
- Earlier the defense has to file a written request to obtain the evidences and also no time frame was set to provide the evidences to the defense.So in many cases the prosecutor used to keep the evidences in their custody till the eve of the trial.
- But as per the new discovery provision,the prosecutor has to provide the defense all the information/evidences within 15 days of the arrangement.The time frame can be extended to 30 days in case the evidence for the trial is large,or the prosecutor does not have evidence in their possession.
The answer is (D) all of the above
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
Answer:
Explanation:
IRB system is an acronym and it stands for Institutional review Board
The institutional review Board is a body of minimum of five members and they are being established as a body or say a committee which is for the regulation and also saddled with the responsibility of reviewing activities related to how research are being done. The institutional review Board are also set up to protect and approve researches being done in a particular subject.
