Want this question answered?
The role of the prosecutor - is to outline the charges and present the evidence against the defendant.
the prosecutor
you as a defendant are entitled to all discovery from the prosecutor. If that did not answer your question, please be more clearer on what you need to know.
The prosecutor.
If a prosecutor discovers during the course of a trial, or if it is noticed by the defendant's attorney that false or misleading evidence has been presented, then the judge and the jury will be so informed to disregard the evidence. Generally speaking, a prosecutor nor a defense attorney will knowingly present false evidence. Depending on the circumstances a judge may call a mistrial, and an entire new trial will take place at a future date. If the prosecutor's case is heavily based on false evidence, then there's a chance that there will be no new trial and the defendant is free of all charges.In situations where the trial is over, and the fact that false evidence was submitted that convicts the defendant, then an appeals court will overturn the verdict. If the defense had presented false evidence that caused a not guilty verdict to be rendered, then that attorney is subject to fines or criminal charges. Whether a defendant can be tried again is doubtful. Depending on the circumstances, new charges might cause a new trial for the former defendant.
Your question is unclear. In the USA, a defendant does NOT HAVE TO testify at his trial, ever. The defendant is the one accused of committing the crime. He does not have to say anything (OJ Simpson did NOT testify in his first trial, Scott Peterson did NOT testify at his trial.) The Prosecutor will present his case (with all his evidence and witnesses) explaining to the jury (or judge) WHY the evidence shows the defendant committed the crime. The Defense Attorney will present his case (with all his evidence and witnesses) explaining to the jury (or judge) WHY the evidence does NOT show the defendant committed the crime. The defendant does not have to be one of those witnesses. He cannot be forced to testify.
An information is where the district attorney or prosecutor charges a defendant of some crime or crimes, whereas an indictment is where the a defendant is charged after a grand jury has heard the evidence. The evidence usually meets a certain standard such as legally sufficient standard or probable cause.
No, a Grand Jury determines whether there is probable cause, and if a prosecutor has enough evidence to bring the case to trial. A petit jury determines the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
In a Criminal Trial, you have a Prosecutor and Defendant. The prosecutor's job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a Civil Trial, you have a Plaintiff and a Defendant. The plaintiff's jog is to present the preponderance of the evidence. Both can be jury trials. The bar is lower for the defendant in the Criminal trial. He can demand a jury trial and get it in most situations. Beyond a reasonable doubt means almost certain. Preponderance of evidence means the evidence on the side of the plaintiff is a whole lot stronger than that on the side of the defendant. Still, what a jury will decide and award one party is frequently simply a guess. It can differ quit a bit from theory.
An indictment may not be modified by the defendant. It's the prosecutor/court that determine the charges.
A Prosecutor
That is called perjury and can lead to fine and/or imprisonment. It might also lead to a guilty verdict, if the jury thinks that the defendant is a liar and is probably guilty of the crime.Added: It would be up to the prosecutor to impeach the defendant and refute his version of affairs by the production of evidence and testimony to the contrary.