ENHANCING EVIDENTIARY FAIRNESS IN INDONESIAN CRIMINAL LAW: ADAPTING BRADY V. MARYLAND PRINCIPLES FOR EQUITABLE TRIALS
Abstract
This article examines the imbalance in the evidentiary system in criminal cases in Indonesia, especially regarding the limited authority of the public prosecutor in assisting the defendant to present mitigating evidence. This problem is contrary to the principle of equality of arms which requires equality between the public prosecutor and the defendant in evidence. By adopting principles from Brady v. Maryland, this article provides a normative framework to enhance the Indonesian criminal evidence system, particularly by advocating for clearer prosecutorial disclosure obligations. While Brady originates from the common law tradition, its core principle ensuring fairness through evidence disclosure can be adapted within Indonesia’s civil law system through judicial interpretation and procedural reforms, aligning with the broader aim of strengthening due process and evidentiary fairness. A normative juridical approach is used by analyzing primary and secondary legal materials, including a comparative study of the application of the Brady Rule in the United States of America. The results show that the need to reform Indonesian criminal procedural law by regulating the obligation of public prosecutors to actively reveal evidence that exculpates defendants in order to ensure substantive equality. This proposed norm to create criminal trials that are quitable in achieving material truth, ensuring only guilty parties are sentenced, while the innocent are acquitted.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aries, Rahmat. “Pembuktian Pidana.” Pengadilan Negeri Lhoksukon , 1–3. Accessed March 5, 2025. https://www.pn-lhoksukon.go.id//media/files/2017061413092611035007145940d3161beaa_20170614131921_Pembuktian+Pidana.pdf.
Bantekas, Ilias. “Equal Treatment of Parties in International Commercial Arbitration.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 69, no. 4 (October 24, 2020): 991–1011. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589320000287.
Benedeti, Bruna Martins. “The Influence of the Media on the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence in the Jury Trial.” In CONNECTING EXPERTISE MULTIDISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FUTURE. Seven Editora, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56238/Connexpemultidisdevolpfut-076.
Brahmana, H.S. “Teori Dan Hukum Pembuktian.” Pengadilan Negeri Lhoksukon, 1–12. Accessed March 5, 2025. https://www.pn-lhoksukon.go.id/media/files/20170417150853209334910258f4781588e77_20170419145829_Teori%2bdan%2bHukum%2bPembuktian.pdf.
Brown, Jaylla. “Police, We Don’t All Look the Same: The, Use of Facial Recognition and Rule.” Fed.Com 74, no. 3 (2021): 329–52. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fedcom74&div=22&id=&page=.
Chen, Brian. “Big Data and Brady Disclosures.” New York University Law Review 99, no. 5 (2024): 1754–92. https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/99-NYU-L-Rev-1754.pdf.
Clafton, Riley E. “A Material Change to Brady: Rethinking Brady v. Maryland, Materiality, and Criminal Discovery.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 110, no. 2 (2020): 307–48. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7669&context=jclc.
Depati News. “Lagi, Ahmadi Mangkir Sidang Tipikor Alasannya Masih Kampanye, Tapi Ferry Satria Hadiri Sidang.” Depatinews.Com, 2024. https://depatinews.com/2024/10/28/lagi-ahmadi-mangkir-sidang-tipikor/.
Doughty, Howard A. “John Rawls and the Evolution of Liberalism.” Innovation Journal 24, no. 3 (2019): 1–29. https://epe.bac-lac.gc.ca/100/201/300/innovation_journal/2021/www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/2019_24_3_2_doughty_rawls-evolution-liberalism.pdf.
Herzberg, Joshua. “The Other Brady Rights.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4543110.
ILIADIS, MARY, OLIVIA SMITH, and JONATHAN DOAK. “Independent Separate Legal Representation for Rape Complainants in Adversarial Systems: Lessons from Northern Ireland.” Journal of Law and Society 48, no. 2 (June 30, 2021): 250–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12295.
Indonesia, Pemerintah Pusat. Kitab Undang-Undang hukum Pidana No 1 Tahun 2023, bpk.go.id § (2023). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/234935/uu-no-1-tahun-2023.
Kamijantono, Harry, Dey Ravena, and Tono Hadi Susiarno. “Forensic Autopsy Implementation in Unnatural Deaths to Achieve Material Truth.” European Journal of Law and Political Science 2, no. 4 (July 21, 2023): 11–18. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejpolitics.2023.2.4.98.
Khablo, Oksana, and Ivo Svoboda. “International Standards for the Application of the Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Proceedings.” Naukovij Vìsnik Nacìonalʹnoï Akademìï Vnutrìšnìh Sprav 29, no. 1 (February 19, 2024): 55–65. https://doi.org/10.56215/naia-herald/1.2024.55.
Khalilov, Fardin Y. “‘Equality of Arms’ in Criminal Procedure in the Context of the Right to a Fair Trial.” RUDN Journal of Law 25, no. 3 (August 23, 2021): 602–21. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2337-2021-25-3-602-621.
King, J D. “Gamesmanship and Criminal Process.” American Criminal Law Review 58, no. 47 (2021): 47–96. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1642&context=wlufac.
Kisekka, Nakibuule Gladys. “Plea Bargaining as a Human Rights Question.” Edited by Kar-wai Tong. Cogent Social Sciences 6, no. 1 (January 17, 2020): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1818935.
Komziuk, A, O Muzychuk, T Kobzieva, I Siadrysta, and I Kovalov. “Ensuring Human Rights and Freedoms Does Not Mean Equality for Everyone: Legal Exceptions and Restrictions.” Lex Humana 16, no. 1 (2023): 127–38. https://seer.ucp.br/seer/index.php/LexHumana/article/view/2864.
Krupchan, Oleksandr, Olena Salmanova, Nataliia Makarenko, Aurika Paskar, and Vitalii Yatskovyna. “Access to Justice within Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine: Modern Realities and European Experience.” Cuestiones Políticas 41, no. 77 (May 28, 2023): 103–15. https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4177.07.
la Porte, Caroline de, and Mads Dagnis Jensen. “The next Generation EU: An Analysis of the Dimensions of Conflict behind the Deal.” Social Policy & Administration 55, no. 2 (March 5, 2021): 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12709.
Lamba, Arushi. “Ei Incumbit Probatio, Qui Dicit, Non Qui Negat.” Bnblegal.Com. Accessed March 5, 2025. https://bnblegal.com/ei-incumbit-probatio-qui-dicit-non-qui-negat/.
Leslie, David, Christopher Burr, Mhairi Aitken, Josh Cowls, Michael Katell, and Morgan Briggs. “Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law: A Primer.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3817999.
Mehta, Prisha, and Ryne Sandel. “Understanding the Significance & Complexity of the Brady Rule.” Journal of Student Research 10, no. 3 (October 10, 2021): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v10i3.1595.
Moran, Rachel. “Brady Lists.” Minnesota Law Review 107 (2022): 1–77. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4054540.
Pallas Loren, Lydia. “Proving Infringement: Burdens of Proof in Copyright Infringement Litigation.” Lewis & Clark Law Review 23, no. 2 (2019): 621–80. https://download.ssrn.com/19/09/23/ssrn_id3458667_code1050716.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjED4aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIH%2FXLv3Nbxl9IpHEJ0OIszI7AynZpNk%2BzFIeaPFa6rnrAiA8uLetmvF%2BvAQ3sI6ofYbk6dQXsFNGB7p5eWpUMCZ%2F1CrGBQjX%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAQaDDMwODQ3NTMwMTI1NyIMMcPfvvQBFB25H%2FgTKpoFkpdD5X8vDiAbljcIDJeRP9lztNiI207kSMlOftAnyKtMLCihuE6B1Z7fixI8qV7c%2F%2FxTSfRXQ4fsZAh3q4tQwQhC%2FrQAmmSvEzypM7gzfRTLeL5a0YIm3tohiXAkGic9dbOHLKUpDlqLcuEkjlaQVEr3HwTi8mIGIz68KkSd%2BujJJhusJ0PobSasvb5Fe3m8Cii6rKJUeldreYHw6MQSjqaVOzd%2FWN4XP4uyLQR%2FU%2BaoTjuo9rps8Wsm5Qtsgzvg6kVXRjPyyjuqkzqZW1rMCrzuoBiyP%2FP5Mtcagb7LkdDqq8vblFfOTbMKJAurfpVnlc33JHQSQGmlL6eyyKUUAmsdVkR3XMnpktrpObmIUKj1bqhKLR1wM18aurUUUdaZGkimKJVe0WaA1S9kSgbfSM2nTM2hqA%2FMk%2By7%2BVuRwcRze1p%2FWvACbJZJyJopMAXKhLc9JyCFsMN%2F4VP74jXhDqDKpUhkzSWHgQbAbiE1nrCsVn%2FdTsgWH7UsDB98VbPuoV1foQ%2FjZBUIGSWhaXACZrFdaMDyeCAAZCF5fF2Hw2gftjT4ZQ1ELZMCtKtDlK%2BPgAUVi3JiACX%2Bic%2FWjS6hMsM9Q9X40XTDjZVf0D4poJRrHxogd1N997XeyfKZ4SRSr%2BA4oyS5UNG15oF2H8Q%2FWkKebdX0DdtaZ5PLEo6Zd%2FfwigqHL%2FFo2JRa4KQx4eIaLSsq6HYJWjzU4oSYv2A9areCs5FgnhpAlUMNQx73JRYSN0OBkOxjuPmr3LVJMEKfcT1vYh6e2xT4PwO2MH1fCs0P7A%2FUw1cfpboB%2BCw%2BbB8r5n88I1udBbDqua%2FaHCnw4n4atfvXKhYuVe4Gun94dJepreXbAC7IhYZDY7leVLwaJ4TzB%2BmoNhrVMImW08AGOrIB1SdY9KpSS9j0jrcn8OI0YMUdI8iYtsZFOUCzqmrp9yX70UoH%2FSQiYPgew7r%2FWBEveRdC046yRuSlG7i5TyOejysbJyQE3zeOA%2FDr%2BM7UUtbseMjgxsWnlTYyBNmKjuGAyAqR5RorBH0eumFcb0dplrb1YzkYWx92G9us8yUxdIf5CMBeNSmadCDwk9V%2FL1b%2BRa%2F%2BKATqzDrCEQdmtPsU8%2FfoAYrwlkmjT%2FLosIKzYMEg5g%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20250502T135824Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWEWNV2CGSK%2F20250502%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=f64ac26bc9cced09a42ad80ac60d2d8aa824593dc0f70725eaa5590dfb1d245e&abstractId=3458667.
Pawana, Sekhar Chandra, and Vincentius Patria Setyawan. “Principles Audi Et Alteram Partem Compatibility in Litigation Process at State and Religious Court: Impact of Pandemic.” Musamus Law Review 4, no. 2 (April 29, 2022): 70–84. https://doi.org/10.35724/mularev.v4i2.4108.
Peacock, Robert. “Restorative Justice and Access to Justice: Critical Reflections of the Global North-South Divide.” The International Journal of Restorative Justice 6, no. 2 (August 2023): 191–206. https://doi.org/10.5553/TIJRJ.000161.
Ramiyanto, Ramiyanto. “Ultra Petita Decisions in The Context of Criminal Law Enforcement in Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 10, no. 1 (April 22, 2021): 173. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.10.1.2021.173-196.
Roeben, Volker. “Judicial Protection as the Meta-Norm in the EU Judicial Architecture.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 12, no. 1 (April 14, 2020): 29–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-019-00085-3.
Saputra, Rian, Josef Purwadi Setiodjati, and Jaco Barkhuizen. “Under-Legislation in Electronic Trials and Renewing Criminal Law Enforcement in Indonesia (Comparison with United States).” Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies 8, no. 1 (May 31, 2023): 243–88. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v8i1.67632.
Simonson, Jocelyn. “The Place of ‘the People’ in Criminal Procedure.” Columbia Law Review 119 (2019): 250–308. https://download.ssrn.com/19/01/28/ssrn_id3324489_code700555.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjED0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDxEsodF4MfehmPYMshmK7103G8G6PXHXjGkX9XGyOZFwIhALx6Kiw%2F3obp5UbXHAm59m9xZlrbZcw1N9XAnnDpnT8gKsYFCNb%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQBBoMMzA4NDc1MzAxMjU3IgxE0cd9vzJG0wwchvoqmgVx0SNmq1fePy1THOh%2Bv5zAMYpul2JlwcmkWHE3gmbBg5%2BFyVn4jJ2CsPgN9XOcA7Ujc%2B0sWN4WdvDNYRWItN%2BdFxYxCiws%2FKMr9sBg6khmJtKeETWmaS%2FCW1vHfjTySxVpVkQtTsAPpG8LJdmzgmGHWXahqUK1dNtm8qMuYzmIgmuyHZcqtbbB5SVX9QcaNO2o4mJmMTRxe4j8rvnI3vTkyLefaajDZRTYSjNuT3sjyXCO1gglQII0hRGmXoqDPzmU1gT76jTJ5Hhi0A2brkjEzHCIv1PbGBZIg%2Fd9KCSo%2BpgTqP0fMfeK%2BUokr52m7TtlImzotH5%2F8DufCxN%2FTsXHDfD4H1owREnBOuY4i73Q%2F6jrZLrI9y7z0iIl9F3nDtb1hGwAJD88HwaTFJTxaEftxrVwtJp2y0MtJn6SEycYtTemD6hZNRjl7spYdfHyl52sM%2F3Pvmu%2F6Yr%2FG8e3uHgtVgQN30sKEY%2FfZjRhE8PdWizUAHdq159k6FuyFBZSMrmVKI0FNWybfL31jnIMhgjTSqlxGibr8evWI7t7I1fnZzvMfIp%2FTNwv%2B%2Fe4COzYUiTowkZcGepIsfC6h8hvsDRZCQadXqL5PGxCc%2BZd2AJNUmr%2FzOykDHt94B2teq1eWARwCxVhPTKDjWLyioX0TbMiob5O7FvgkZUrNQvZS0OMdqRGpaoEB2XotPgtB7O2FpIQ5gY%2Baemris6b8MovrdSYUAnSIcGz60RO1G%2FUSeL657w7PfVfUlXEVcRvYD9ezZWDIuEAznge8HipA3BYMT%2FrgKqoSJyuObMxcFcpUXbtellYPCzM6jl4EZ3d04vr7U8mCrTT83GoraDLTd2nNSEuLkcjLZ9GrPeYi0W8chq4%2BE0dD7oYssDPCKwwoYXTwAY6sAEtoqVaHffzuj6uvH4Y6KdR8mkIZXGT550MlCOda0Fg3WMbJtisUxncrXxxu6vDKjIzz35ZgqQ4E7v13fCY60t8YG%2Bk2U7J2I9zLw4mVqzmkAYGDxlWVgwhooRbCPkhJYWI6Xv52%2FuZexwQxgWHIfgQ7%2F4kkAetZAploJAyPCSbX6T22F94gJb1VBlwU3Tx%2F%2B5MEz7%2FlomGeMsDVrrlLYAawkadwbyxpg8H0rd8PV%2FuxA%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20250502T140235Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWEVXU2KL7R%2F20250502%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=0c065664d366941dd6d67e534fe7c8d2b4b3dfa0248d1b0febcc16a211c0ff1e&abstractId=3273565.
Smith, Olivia. “Cultural Scaffolding and the Long View of Rape Trials.” In Sexual Violence on Trial, 241–53. Routledge, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429356087-25.
Susilo, Erwin, and Muhammad Rafi. “Pendekatan Favor Defensionis Dalam Merealisasikan Hak Terdakwa Untuk Menghadirkan Saksi Atau Ahli.” Veritas et Justitia 10, no. 2 (December 29, 2024): 343–63. https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.v10i2.8479.
Taylor, Alice. “Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019.” The University of Queensland Law Journal 43, no. 1 (April 3, 2024): 41–70. https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v43i1.8123.
The Court. “Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 4 June 2013. ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department,” 2013. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62011CJ0300.
Trantidis, Aris. “Progressive Constitutional Deliberation: Political Equality, Social Inequalities and Democracy’s Legitimacy Challenge.” Politics 44, no. 3 (August 23, 2024): 453–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957221074899.
Trisnadi, Setyo. “The Role of Forensic Medicine in the Criminal Evidence Process.” Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum 8, no. 3 (December 28, 2021): 455. https://doi.org/10.26532/jph.v8i3.18957.
U.S. Supreme Court. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
ZY, Danny, and Salda Andala. “Sidang Joki CPNS Kejaksaan Ditunda Karena Saksi Tidak Hadir, Hakim: Bisa Dipanggil Secara Paksa.” Lampost.Co, 2024. https://lampost.co/hukum/sidang-joki-cpns-kejaksaan-ditunda-karena-saksi-tidak-hadir-hakim-bisa-dipanggil-secara-paksa/.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/kanun.v27i1.44351
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 48 timesPDF - 17 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
