Case Study on the Follow:

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)

Claudia Proctor
Criminal Justice 310-D02
Professor Bragg Jr.
Liberty University Online
July 27, 2014

Procedural History
In 1963 the Court of Appeal of Maryland was granted an order of certiorari to study if Brady
constitutional right has been taken. When the appeal court denied to grant a new murder trial to
deny the question of punishment. The Appeals Court granted a retrial. However, there was a
second appeal where the ruling of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with the Court holding that
the evidence suppressed was material to the punishment of the defendant but couldnt have
exculpated him (supreme.justia).
Facts
At the trial of Brady, Brady confuses to the crime but not to the actual murder, which his
companion Boblit had done the actual murder. Brady, and his companion, Boblit, was convicted
of murder in the first degree. The murder was committed in the perpetration of a robbery and for
1st degree murder in the state of Maryland punishment was life imprisonment or death. In Brady
trial Brady admitted to his involvement of the crime. However, Boblit was known to be the one
who committed the murder. Prior to this, his legal counsel had requested permission to examine
Boblits extra-judicial statements but the prosecution, though disclosing some statements,
specifically withheld the statement where Boblit had admitted committing the actual homicide.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held that although the suppression of evidence denied the
petitioner due process of the law, this only warranted a retrial on the question of punishment and
not guilt (supreme.justia).

Legal Problems
The legal problems that arouse from the Brady v Washington was if the Court of Appeals
deprived the petitioner of his constitutional rights and if they restricted there chose to mention
punishment during trial
Reasoning
They were questions that came up during the trial. First, wondering if the prosecution was
allowed to hide or withhold evidence that would allow others to believe Brady to be innocent of
any wrongdoing which would release Brady. This does not conform to the standards of justice
where it is a fundamental requirement for the law to protect an accused person with the same
firmness it protects the society. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed that the hiding or
withholding of evidence violated Brady rights for due process. If information is held from the
accused person from the prosecution suppress that information, regardless if it was for a good
reason this then become a violation of the accuser constitution rights due process.
Disposition
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Maryland Court of Appeals.

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

Case Facts:
The Witness was cross-examine by the Defense counsel being asked if any promises of leniency
had been made, and the witness falsely answered no. The prosecution represented that no such
promises had been made. Upon learning that a promise not to prosecute the witness had in fact
been made, defendant moved for a new trial based upon the newly discovered evidence.
Reasoning
On certiorari, the Court reversed and remanded because the prosecution's failure to disclose the
promise of leniency to the witness was an issue affecting credibility. By the material evidence
being suppression it violated the due process and justified a new trial and didnt make difference
if it was a result from the negligence of the prosecution or deliberate deception.
Disposition
The case was reschedule for a new trial and the Court reversed the judgment of the appellate
court's and the trial court's conviction of defendant.

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

Case Facts
The defendant was convicted for murdering a man by stabbing him to death with a knife. There
have been a discovery that the victim has a past criminal record that included offenses for assault
and carrying a deadly weapon which the prosecutor failed to disclose (caselaw).

Reasoning
The court reversed a lower court's reversal of defendant's murder conviction because the
prosecutor had no duty, under the Due Process Clause of U.S. Constitutional Amendment , to
voluntarily disclose exculpatory matter absent a pretrial request for specific evidence.

References:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/case.html
http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/11/giglio-v-united-states-case-brief.html#sthash.0SwL2TZ4.dpuf

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=405&invol=150