We can argue about whether criminal law should focus on punishment or rehabilitation, but it should be completely evident that it's about punishing/rehabilitating the right person. Criminal prosecution isn't a game you're trying to win.

If the investigation surfaces any evidence at all that the defendant might be innocent (or hints at the existence of said evidence), it's a gross miscarriage of justice not to bring this evidence forward.

In England: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/11228241787200552...

> The prosecution is under a duty to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry in an investigation, and to disclose to the defence any material it uncovers which may be reasonably capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence.

> the prosecution does not have to search for and provide evidence that may exonerate the defense

Nobody said the prosecution had to do anything. Where do you think you saw that? But the police are required to investigate. It has been the police who have been at fault, and censored rightly so, for not finding this evidence in these cases.

No, but the defense can and probably will subpoena these things. As a prosecutor you’d be dumb not to look at evidence you guess will come out at trial anyways.

In the US, the Law is clear - the Prosecution must expose exculpatory evidence to the Defense as a part of discovery.

They don’t have to search for it, but they do have to provide any exonerating evidence they discover in the course of their investigation.

That’s part of “discovery”, and cases have been thrown out because prosecutors concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense.

It's what happened in the Liam Allen case which triggers this new guidance.