There is a general belief, especially for people who don’t pay attention to things, to just believe that the way things are at present is the way that things have always been. This isn’t true now, and never has been true, for changes are all about us, some quite visible, and others invisible. When it comes to a criminal trial, there is the general belief that pretrial discovery has always existed, but that isn’t the case, it wasn’t until 1944 that pretrial discovery was codified, and by doing so, each side to a criminal case was thereby obligated to become transparent to the other, by providing access to pertinent documents, witness names, and just the general evidence applicable to the case at hand. In other words, pretrial discovery makes the point that each side needs to have fair access to the other side’s materials, so that they can not only better understand the elements of the case, but also to help build their own case better.
It might seem really weird that the prosecution, as well as the defense, is obligated to open up their books about the case at hand, as opposed to each side being able to keep their evidence and strategy close to their vest, but the very purpose of discovery is to allow each side a fair chance to prepare their case to the best of their ability, by a more thorough understanding of the perspective of what the other side has, which by this being the rule, precludes either side from “blindsiding” the other side.
Further to the point, if the very point of a trial is for a fair and impartial outcome, as compared to one side having all the advantages so that they can achieve the result that they desire, then pretrial discovery is the very thing that definitely levels the field. After all, whatever evidence that there is in a criminal trial shouldn’t be seen as a secret, but rather should be available for the other side to examine and to question thoroughly. That is to say, the point of a trial is to get to the truth, and pretrial discovery is a huge aid in obtaining that truth, because what needs to be known is there to be known.
Indeed, there isn’t any point to a public trial if the evidence pertinent to it can be hidden, distorted, or simply not available to the other side. That isn’t a trial at all, but more an exercise to see that those who should be shamed are shamed, for it is difficult to come up with a sound defense, without having what is needed to properly prepare for it. Look, a trial should be about the search for truth, and truth should not be something that needs to be concealed, and only then, at just the right time, will it present itself. If what is true is true, then let it be known, loud and clear, and those then that aren’t able to refute that truth are the same who will have to accept that in the end, it’s always better for the truth to win out.