{"id":"qd6dffbecfa813c437636","batch_id":"batch-000023","seq":119,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2025-08-02T17:34:32.330Z","text":"所以瑞恩这个方案可行","edited":false,"reply_to":"q3add43e7666524db7540","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd6dffbecfa813c437636","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3add43e7666524db7540","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000023","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000023","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd6dffbecfa813c437636","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd6dffbecfa813c437636/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qd6dffbecfa813c437636","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q69b5866262bdcf2f3914","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-08-02T17:26:05.207Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q69b5866262bdcf2f3914"},{"id":"q3add43e7666524db7540","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-08-02T17:32:31.350Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3add43e7666524db7540"},{"id":"qa763268c913ae53421e4","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-08-02T17:33:57.462Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa763268c913ae53421e4"},{"id":"qc9745f456324b5a9dc1c","speaker":"ntp***","date":"2025-08-02T17:34:46.992Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc9745f456324b5a9dc1c"},{"id":"q6855b4d8b314f8e3c095","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-08-02T17:34:57.380Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6855b4d8b314f8e3c095"},{"id":"q23caca66698d3f174acd","speaker":"ntp***","date":"2025-08-02T17:35:20.788Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q23caca66698d3f174acd"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q3add43e7666524db7540","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-08-02T17:32:31.350Z","text":"［用户 pz0***］ 你可能指的是美国最高法院在 2009 年作出的判决：\n《District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne》，557 U.S. 52 (2009)。\n\n\n---\n\n🔹 Osborne 案的核心裁定：\n\n美国最高法院裁定：\n\n> “Brady 规则不适用于定罪之后的证据获取。”\n\n\n\n也就是说：\n\nBrady 义务主要适用于审判阶段（包括审前和审中）。\n\n在定罪之后，被告没有基于联邦宪法的普遍权利要求获取证据（例如为了进行 DNA 检测）。\n\n\n\n---\n\n🔹 那么，这是否意味着检察官在定罪后完全不需要披露 Brady 证据？\n\n不是。\nOsborne 的意思是：\n\n被告在定罪之后，没有自动的宪法权利基于 Brady 案例要求获取证据来进行新测试或调查。\n\n但这并不等于检察官可以隐藏已经发现的、有可能推翻定罪的证据。\n\n\n在许多司法辖区，检察官仍然有法律和伦理义务披露那些在定罪后新发现的、有利于被告的重大证据，尤其是可能动摇原裁决公正性的证据。\n\n\n---\n\n🔹 结论总结：\n\n根据 Osborne 案，Brady 并不赋予被告在定罪后自动获得新证据的权利。\n\n但如果检察官在定罪后获得了新的 Brady 证据（如无罪证据），他们通常仍有义务披露。\n\n不披露此类证据，可能成为：\n\n提起人身保护令（Habeas corpus）的依据\n\n撤销定罪的理由\n\n控告检察不当行为的证据","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3add43e7666524db7540"}}