Memorandum
Disclosure of Evidence Favorable To Defendant
James L. Brinkley Sr.
Liberty University
Professor Wells
July 17, 2015
To: The criminal Justice department
From: The Chief of Police
Date: 20th September 2014
Subject: Main issues in Supreme Court decisions on disclosure of evidence favorable to defendant in courts
Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to highlight major issues in Supreme Court rulings that require prosecution to give information relevant about the backgrounds of government eyewitnesses. As a consequence, the integrity of the police officer (witness) in question and truthfulness of the information thereby given by him/her is required to be consistent beyond reasonable doubt. In light of this issue, the Supreme Court of U.S has on various occasions ruled in favor of the prosecution’s disclosure of background information and other information that may be favorable to the defendant in challenging the integrity of the witness. Consequently, it has now become fundamental that each unit within the criminal justice department ensure high level of integrity among its officers.
Main issues in Brady v. Maryland case
In this case, the state of Maryland charged John Brady and a companion Boblit for murder. However, in a written statement, Boblit confessed to being involved in the actual act of murder, information which the prosecution had withheld. Brady had admitted taking part in the killing but it was Boblit who did the actual murder. Brady had no knowledge of Brady’s written confession (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). Brady’s petition on the new found evidence saw the Supreme Court order the Appeals Court of Maryland to revisit its ruling on the matter. The court of appeal of Maryland determined that the evidence suppressed by the state violated the rights of the petitioner under the constitutional clause of due process and hence granted the certiorari, (Hochman, 1996).
The case facts
Both Brady (petitioner) and Boblit had been convicted to first degree murder in a robbery by violence incident. Such cases are punishable by life sentence or death in Maryland.
Issues
Suppressing information crucial to the defendant by the prosecution: is it a violation of the rights of the defendant in the due process?
Judicial holding
The Supreme Court of U.S held that suppressing information vital for the defendant was a violation of the rights of the defendant in the due process. According to the US Supreme Court, suppressing evidence favorable to the accused violated the due process clause since regardless of the good or bad faith of the state; the evidence was material to punishment or guilt of the accused (Hochman, 1996).
Main issues in Giglio v. United States
The main issue in this case is the promise of immunity against prosecution of the key witnesses in exchange of testimony against the accused. Giglio stood accused of forgery of signatures of bank money orders availed to him by the bank teller Taliento. Upon discovery by top management officials, Taliento was promised by the prosecutor immunity against prosecution in exchange to testifying against the accused. However, two years later during trial of indicted Giglio, a different prosecutor was assigned the case in which the previous prosecutor had not informed him of the immunity against prosecution for Taliento. It was at this trial that the defense learned about the immunity promise when the witness mentioned it .However, after the trial process was over Giglio was convicted. On a later appeal, the U.S Supreme Court deliberated that the ruling on the petitioner (Giglio) be reversed on grounds of failure of the government to disclose immunity promise to the defendant, was a violation of the rights of the defendant on the due process. The court also maintained that it was the responsibility of the prosecution to inform subsequent prosecutors of all the duties and responsibilities expected from them.
Main issues in United States v. Agurs
Despite attempts by the defense attorney in claiming that his client acted in self-defense, the Court of Appeal went ahead and convicted the defendant (Agurs) with murder. The defendant stood accused of killing her client (Sewell) with a knife. Later on, the defendant’s attorney discovered that the victim (Sewell) had previously been convicted on charges of assault and illegal possession of weapons. The defendant filed for a petition with back up of the new evidence and grounds that the prosecution failed to disclose important information regarding the plaintiff’s criminal record (United States v. Agurs, 1976).
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had the duty to disclose all the exculpatory information even when the defense team did not request it. However, in reinstating the conviction, the Supreme Court held that failure to present “Brady material” required a new trial only when the disclosure of the material information was likely to affect the outcome of the trial process, (United States v. Agurs, 1976). Accordingly, the Supreme Court, judge that the Jury at the Court of appeal was well informed of the criminal record of the victim and concluded that this information was not vital in the deliberation of the final ruling (United States v. Agurs, 1976).
Conclusion
Based on these cases, it is notable how information critical to the ruling of the jury could affect the outcome of the ruling. Distorting or withholding information of this kind could render the justice system unfair. People may be wrongfully convicted or punished without regards to all the details pertaining to the case. As such, it is important for police officers and other government witnesses to uphold integrity and truthfulness in giving their accounts of what happened. It should come to the attention of officers and other witnesses that giving false testimony in a court of law is an offence and punishable by law besides breaking professional ethics. As such serious actions ought to be taken against such officers.
References
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
Hochman, R. (1996). Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials. Chicago: The University of Chicago Law Review.
Schoenfeld, H. (2005). Violated Trust: Conceptualizing Prosecutorial Misconduct. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(3), pp.250-271.
United States V. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|