And the award for most inept(US) cops goes to...

[The Yosemite Bear]

Remember this is the same US courts system that refuses to process the evidence in the SAM SHEPPARD case because all the participants are dead nnd the son just wants the state to say that his father did not kill his mother.

[Glocksman]

It's a safe bet the prosecutor actively excluded any evidence that might have been beneficial to the accused. It seems as if that happens regularly in the US legal system.

It happens, but it's not legal for them to do so under SCOTUS's decision in the Brady case.

Here's a nice piece I found on it written by an instructor at the FBI Academy.

Linka, as Shep would say.

In the landmark decision of Brady v. Maryland,5 the U.S. Supreme
Court recognized that fundamental notions of fairness and due
process within the meaning of the 5th and 14th amendments require
the government to provide evidence favorable to the defense.
Brady clearly established that in a criminal case, the accused
has a right to any exculpatory evidence, i.e., any evidence in
the government's possession that is favorable to the accused and
that is material to either guilt or punishment, irrespective of
the good or bad faith on the government's part in failing to
disclose such information.6


In Brady, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and
sentenced to death. Brady testified about his participation in
the crime but stated his companion actually committed the murder.
Prior to trial, Brady requested copies of statements provided by
the companion. The government provided some of those statements
but failed to provide the statement in which the companion
admitted killing the victim. Brady did not learn of this
statement until after he was convicted and sentenced.


The Supreme Court agreed with Brady's contention that the
government's failure to provide the companion's statement
amounted to a denial of his right to due process of law
guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The Court concluded that while
the statement did not affect Brady's culpability relating to the
first-degree murder charge, the companion's statement was
relevant for purposes of Brady's punishment. The Court elaborated
on the defendant's constitutional right to discover exculpatory
evidence in a criminal proceeding by concluding that "suppression
by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon
request violates due process where the evidence is material
either to guilt or to punishment."7


From this decision emerged the term "Brady material," which is
used by both attorneys and law enforcement officers to describe
exculpatory material that, according to the Brady rule, must be
provided to the defense if material to guilt or punishment. The
focus of this article is not to define the universe of Brady
material but rather to identify the types of information
concerning the conduct of law enforcement officers that falls
within the Brady rule.

As a result of Brady and Giglio, the government is
constitutionally required to disclose any evidence favorable to
the defendant that is material to either guilt or punishment,
including evidence that may impact on the credibility of a
witness. Furthermore, the defendant's failure to request
favorable evidence does not leave the government free of this
obligation because constitutional error results "...if there is a
reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to
the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been
different."

[Darth Smiley]

What the hell? The government can (or at least, could) withhold evidence in a criminal trail? And here I was, thinking that the government's job was to determine what actually happened, and then give the information to the judge and jury for a verdict and sentencing.

[Darth Wong]

What the hell? The government can (or at least, could) withhold evidence in a criminal trail? And here I was, thinking that the government's job was to determine what actually happened, and then give the information to the judge and jury for a verdict and sentencing.

American sheriffs and judges and prosecutors are often elected. Making these people into politicians is a bad idea because now, they take actions for the sake of popularity, not necessarily professionalism.