JJohnson Reseach Paper case summary
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
350
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by Joanice
1
Case Summary
Joanice L. Johnson
Helms School of Government
CJUS350: Criminal Justice Ethics (D01)
Robert Roth
November 13, 2023
2
Case Summary
The due process rights found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution mandate that before the government can deprive a person of their
protective life, liberty, or property, they must follow certain procedural steps (Pollock, 2019).
However, in
Brady v. Maryland
,
Giglio v. United States
, and
United States v. Agurs
, all three
cases were argued before the United States Supreme Court because the government failed to
disclose evidence that could have resulted in different sentences. This paper will examine and
summarize the main issues of these cases.
Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963)
John Brady and Charles Boblit were both convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced
to death. Prior to his trial, Brady’s attorney requested to examine Boblit’s extrajudicial
statements. The prosecutor provided all but Boblit’s confession of him admitting to murder. After
learning that the prosecutor withheld this confession, Brady appealed to the Maryland Court of
Appeals. They held that by withholding the confession, the prosecutor denied Brady’s due
process (Lord, 2023). Therefore, the Appeals Court remanded the case for a retrial but only
surrounding Brady’s punishment, not his guilt (
Brady v. Maryland,
1963).
Brady petitioned the United States Supreme Court to determine if the prosecutor
withholding Boblit's confession denied Brady's due process rights, and if the Maryland Court of
Appeals was wrong to remand the case to a new trial, only questioning Brady's punishment. The
Court agreed that the prosecutor suppressing evidence that favored the defendant violated the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court also upheld the Appeal's
decision to reconsider only Brady's punishment, not his guilt (
Brady v. Maryland,
1963).
3
Giglio v. United States
, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
John Giglio was convicted of passing forged money orders. While awaiting his appeal,
his defense attorney discovered that the government failed to disclose a promise they made with
a key witness, Robert Taliento, to extend leniency in exchange for his testimony against Giglio.
Robert Taliento was Giglio's coconspirator and the only witness to link Giglio to the crime
(
Giglio v. United States,
1972). Giglio's motion for a new trial was denied, as the court found that
the prosecutor's error would not change the verdict; the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court's decision (
Giglio v. United States,
n.d.).
The Supreme Court granted
certiorari
to determine whether the prosecutor’s failure to
disclose the promise of granting Taliento immunity in exchange for his testimony was grounds
for a new trial under “the due process criteria of
Napue v. Illinois
” (
Giglio v. United States
, 1972,
para. 6). The Court determined that failure to disclose the promise did indeed violate Giglio’s due
process right and therefore, he was entitled to a new trial. The Court also noted that since the
government relied solely on Taliento’s testimony, without it, there would be no indictment or
evidence in Giglio’s trial
(
Giglio v. United States
, 1972).
United States v. Agurs
, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
Linda Agurs was found guilty of second-degree murder in the death of James Sewell.
Agurs and Sewell were engaged in a knife fight, which resulted in Agurs killing Sewell.
Evidence presented at the trial were two knives that Sewell carried on his person, and Agurs used
one of the knives to kill Sewell; Agurs argued that it was used in self-defense. Three months after
her conviction, Agurs' attorney filed an appeal for a new trial after discovering the prosecutor
failed to disclose Sewell's prior violent past and criminal record, which could have supported the
defendant's argument of self-defense (Nofer, 1986). The District Court denied the motion, stating
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
that Sewell's criminal record was not enough material to prove his character and change the
outcome of the jury. However, the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision, stating
that because the prosecutor failed to disclose Sewell's criminal record, Agurs' Sixth Amendment
right to an effective counsel was denied. In addition, her due process right was denied based
on
Brady v. Maryland
, which prohibits the prosecution from suppressing evidence they may
favor the accused (
United States v. Agurs
, 1975).
The government petitioned the United States Supreme Court, posing the question of
"whether the prosecutor's failure to provide defense counsel with certain background information
about Sewell…., deprived her of a fair trial under the rule of
Brady v. Maryland" (United States
v. Agurs, 1976, para. 7).
The Court held that the prosecution failure to disclose Sewell's criminal
record did not deprive Linda Agurs of a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment
(United States v. Agurs, 1976).
The United States Supreme Court strives to make the criminal justice system fair in
landmark cases such as
Brady v. Maryland
(Lord, 2023). Nonetheless, the American criminal
justice system continues to be plagued with professional misconduct, such as police officers
using excessive force and the justice system wrongfully convicting the innocent (Pollock, 2019).
God has set the standard for justice and when individuals suffer unjustly due to professional
misconduct, this angers God. “For I, the Lord, love justice. I hate robbery and wrongdoing. I will
faithfully reward my people for their suffering and make an everlasting covenant with them.
(
New Living Translation
, 1996/2015, Isaiah 61:8).
5
References
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/#top
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/#top
Giglio v. United States. Oyez. (n.d.). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-29
Lord, D. (2023). Creating architects of justice: A gift from modern ethics to
Brady
on its 60th
anniversary.
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics
,
36
(3).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4417140
New Living Translation
. (2015). Tyndale House Publishing. (Original work published 1996)
Nofer, P. G. (1986). Specific requests and the prosecutorial duty to disclose evidence: The impact of
United States v. Bagley.
Duke Law Journal
, (5), 892–914.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1372671
Pollock, J. M. (2019).
Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice
. Cengage Learning.
United States v. Agurs
,
510 F. 2d 1249 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (1975).
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-agurs-2
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/97/