cjus-b04......this assignment is for kim woods only

here is the feedback for this assignment..please follow these specific directions as well

Two quick things:  "defence" should be "defense" and the second is that Respondent actually means a defendant in a civil case, that is one that is NOT criminal.  So, a criminal defendant is never referred to as a Respondent.  

In analyzing Brady, the Boblit statements were not "out dated" but rather he admitted to doing the actual killing.  Brady was present, but Boblit did the act.  So, Brady should not get the death penalty.  Hence a new trial.

On Giglio, if you were on the jury would you wish to know if the prime witness had a deal for special punishment treatment, thinking it may color the testimony a little?  I expect so and so did Burger.

In Agurs, "back" should be "bad" criminal record, so always proof read.  

These cases are difficult to analyze.  I have a few ideas for you to help as you move to part 2.

Here is my take away from these cases as they relate to this topic:

Brady requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence when requested, if it will affect guilt or punishment. The following two cases clarify and expand on this ruling. Giglio expands exculpatory evidence to information which affects credibility of government witnesses and also claims that not disclosing it need not even be intentional.  Furthermore, the information may not even be in the possession of the government agent. Agurs stands for the proposition that even if the defense does not request the evidence, it should be turned over if the prosecution knows it is exculpatory and material to the defense.

These cases are difficult.