DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH PAPER: THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ITS ENVIRONMENT ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS OVERVIEW Since 1963, a series of United States Supreme Court case decisions have clarified that in criminal cases, prosecutors must disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the defendant. This includes information that may be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses, including law enforcement officers. These decisions mean that police officers who have documented histories of lying in official matters are liabilities to their agencies, and these histories may render them unable to testify credibly. INSTRUCTIONS Write a professional memorandum summarizing the main issues that are involved in the following United States Supreme Court cases. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972); United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976) • 2.5-3 pages (double spaced) excluding the reference page. • Current APA format. • 3 peer-reviewed sources. • Acceptable sources (course textbooks, academic books, .gov websites, peer-reviewed journal articles published within the last 5-10 years only). This assignment requires that students follow a template. Students must review and follow the template carefully. Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

Answer

TO:

FROM:

RE: ANALYSIS OF CASES

DATE: JANUARY 24 2022

Brady V Maryland

Question Presented

The issue that was in dispute was whether the state suppression of evidence violated the rights of Brady under the due process clause of the constitution.

Short answer

Yes, the suppression of evidence violated the due process clause.

Statement of Facts

 In the case, the jury of Maryland found the defendants guilty of first-degree murder. Brady one of the defendants maintained that he was not involved in the killing but that he participated in the robbery that preceded. Both Brady and Boblit received the death penalty. After trial, Bobby learned that Boblit had confessed to the murder but the prosecutor had not revealed the information but instead suppressed the confession.

Discussion

Therefore, the Maryland Court of appeal was faced with the use of deciding whether the suppression of the confession denied Boby Due process. Secondly, the issue that was in dispute was whether the Maryland court of appeal was wrong to remand only based on the question of punishment.

Conclusion

The court held that the defense has the right to examine any evidence that may be termed exculpatory. In the pretrial, the prosecution is expected to release all the evidence that might show that the defendant is innocent or guilty and has a legal obligation to release any evidence in its possession. Any suppression by the prosecution by the prosecutor of evidence favorable to an accused person violates the due process of the law. the court also held that according to the laws applicable in Maryland the confession would not exonerate Brady and so the remand made for reconsideration of appropriate punishment under the circumstances was proper.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972)

Question Presented

In the case, the issue that was in dispute was whether the failure by the prosecutor to disclose that there was a promise of leniency to the witness is an issue that affected the credibility and was therefore material.

Short answer

Yes, the failure was material and therefore affected due process.

Statement of Facts

The defendant appealed against the judgment issued by the court of appeal affirmed the decision of the district court which denied the motion by the defendant asking for a new trial. the defendant requested a new trial after learning that a witness who was questioned by counsel lied that there was no promise of leniency made.

Discussion

The witness had falsely answered no. The prosecution denied that such promise had ever been made. the defendant upon discovery that indeed the promise was nade moved to seek a retrial. the court of appeal dismissed the motion resulting in the appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the failure to disclose was an issue that impacted the credibility of the witness and was therefore material. Therefore, in this case, the non-disclosure violated the due process of the law.

United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)

Question Presented

In the case, the issue that was in dispute was whether the prosecutor is constitutionally bound to volunteer exculpatory information and if so the standard of materiality that will result in such a duty. the prosecutor failed to disclose that the victim has an extensive criminal record. The defense argued that such information if it had been disclosed would have resulted in the defendant raising an argument of self-defense.

Short Answer

No, it was not and did not affect his right to a fair trial

Statement of Facts

The Supreme court analyzed the right to a fair trial under the due process clause that is found in the Fifth Amendment.

Conclusion

The court held that the prosecutor did not violate the duty and held that the proper standard of undisclosed evidence is that which if it was omitted creates a reasonable doubt of guilt that was not present and therefore a constitutional error would be termed as having been committed.

Analysis of the Rule set out in Brady

The burden of proof is on the defendant to show how the information that was not disclosed was favorable and material to their case. In the case of United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). the court defined material evidence as being information that when disclosed would have resulted in a different holding or sentence. In this case, the impeachment evidence should be disclosed to the defendant. The decisions of the Supreme Court create a rule that obligates the prosecutor to disclose information to the defense that could be used to discredit the case. The prosecutors have a responsibility of ensuring that they know all the information that is within the knowledge of the police. In the year 1996, the Giglio policy came into being which required the federal I enforcement agencies to inform prosecutors about any possible information that could be potentially impeaching.i9f there is information that is before the court that the officer is being untruthful or biased in any way, that information could be used for the impeachment of the officer.