But a rule requiring prosecutors to give the defense everything they know could solve the problem posed by convoluted disclosure rules.

Indeed, even individual prosecutions are historically rare, requiring prosecutors to prove a judge deliberately acted in bad faith.

They threatened to stall consideration of the bill to force the House to give ground on a 1998 law requiring federal prosecutors to follow state ethics rules.

Fortunately, the governor vetoed SB9, which would have required prosecutors to openly confess to racism.

If so, the Justices must decide whether to require Federal prosecutors to open their books to the defense and explain themselves.

The state's criminal discovery law requires prosecutors to share test results, regardless of whether they were delivered in writing or orally.

Before that amendment's enactment, the court had required prosecutors to prove an intent to kill before it would uphold a death sentence.

The law does not require federal prosecutors to prove any connection between the offense and the federal money, other than its existence.

But the original independent counsel law required special prosecutors to explain why they chose not to indict someone.

In its place, the lawyers said, the court should require prosecutors to prove a defendant's guilt "beyond any doubt" to justify an execution.