Need back in 20 hours from now Cjus 520

MEMO RANDUM

TO: Dr. Bruce Gay

FROM: Vibert Jacob

DATE: 7 February 2017

SUBJECT : Witness Credibility and Prosecutor Obligation

Evidence is the cornerstone of the justice system. Be that as it may, there are instances where prosecutors have been accused of withholding of such evidence. There are instance where the credibility of a witnessed can be undermined by the evidence presented to court. In such instances, it is the responsibility of the person pursuing the case to reveal such evidence. This memorandum will highlight several instances that reveal the need for the prosecutor to disclose any evidence that might undermine the credibility of a crucial witness to a case.

Brady vs. Maryland

One of the most notable cases that highlight the importance of revealing evidence that puts into question the credibility of a witness is Brady vs. Maryland. In this case, the petitioner applied to have the case retried based on his allegation that he had been convicted of a crime committed by his accomplice. Both the petitioner and the accomplice were accused of first degree murder but only the petitioner ended up being convicted. However, the petitioner claimed that his accomplice actually confessed to the crime, but this information was withheld by the prosecutor.

Discussion

.

Giglio vs. the United States

In Giglio vs. United States, Giglio was accused of forger. The bank worker was accused of forging currency notes and convicted to five years in prison. The main witness in the case was Mr. Taliento who also happened to have been Giglio’s co-conspirator. The conviction of the bank employee was mainly hinged on the witness testimony put forward by Mr. Taliento. However, the prosecutor to the case failed to reveal that they had offered a deal to the witness whereby he was assured of immunity from prosecution in case he agreed to testify against his accomplice. In his application for a second hearing, Giglio pointed out that his accomplice had been offered a deal and this had compromised his credibility as a witness. Initially, his request for a re-hearing was denied but later on, the court agreed to a second hearing.

gave.

United States vs. Agurs

The third case that brings out the aspect of witness credibility is United States vs. Agurs . Agurs was accused of first degree murder for murdering her boyfriend. Upon completion of the case, Agurs, the defendant realized that the prosecutor had failed to disclose evidence regarding her boyfriend’s history of violence. In his defense, the prosecutor argued that Agurs had not requested to be furnished with evidence relating to her boyfriend’s past. The case of Agurs vs. United States brings to the fray several issues with one key issue being the role of prosecutor in revealing any evidence that relate to the witness credibility .

Discussion

Due to the ability of such evidence to be crucial in determining a case, it is reasonable for the prosecutor to be handed the responsibility of providing certain pieces of information such as the history of a witness or victim in a case. As such, the credibility of a witness needs to be determined before any evidence or testimonies are received from the witness, while at the same time, in the case of the credibility of law enforcement officers, evidence regarding the history of an officer witness proves to be crucial for the sake of serving justice and fairness.

All in all, the credibility of a witness is one of the most important elements when it comes to determining the possible outcome of a case. A prosecutor has a legal obligation to provide evidence that can go into addressing issues to do with the credibility of a witness. This is important since issues to do with credibility must be resolved before a witness is allowed to testify. Furthermore, credibility of a witness with respect to law enforcement officers must also be taken into account before allowing the law enforcement officer to testify.

References

Giglio vs. the United States: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/405/150.html

Brady vs. Maryland: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/case.html

United States vs. Agurs: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/427/97.html

Criteria	Levels of Achievement
Content (70%)	Advanced 92-100%	Proficient 84-91%	Developing 1-83%	Not present	Total	%
Answer Specificity	23 to 25 points: All key components of the question are thoroughly answered in the paper.	21 to 22.5 points: All key components of the question is largely answered in the paper with few exceptions.	1 to 20.5 points: Key portions of assigned questions are left unanswered.	0 points Not present	10
Logic & Clarity	23 to 25 points: Clear, logical flow to paper; major points are stately clearly.	21 to 22.5 points: Clear logical flow to paper; major points are stated clearly for the most part.	1 to 20.5 points: Lack of clarity and failure to logically explain and communicate answers is the norm.	0 points Not present	18
Research & Support	18.5 to 20 points: Major points are thoroughly supported by the following: 1.Lecture material or Scripture 2.Good examples (pertinent conceptual or personal examples 3.Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, comparing/contrasting concept)	16.5 to 18 points: Major points are largely supported by the following: 1.Lecture material or Scripture 2.Good examples (pertinent conceptual or personal examples 3.Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, comparing/contrasting concept)	1 to 16 points: Major points are lacking substantial support by the following: 1.Lecture material or Scripture 2.Good examples (pertinent conceptual or personal examples 3.Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, comparing/contrasting concept)	0 points Not present	13
Structure (30%)	Advanced 92-100%	Proficient 84-91%	Developing 1-83%	Not present	Total	%
Spelling, Grammar & APA	18.5 to 20 points: Little to no errors in spelling, grammar and APA	16.5 to 18 points: Some errors in spelling, grammar & APA	1 to 16 points: Numerous errors in spelling, grammar & APA	0 points Not present	0
Sufficient Length	9.25 to 10 points: 2.5 pages of content and a title page (reference page if needed)	8.25 to 9 points: Paper runs a bit long or a bit short of page requirements	1 to 8 points: Paper is more than three pages or less than two pages.	0 points Not present	10
Professor Comments:	Case briefing lacking, several key legal issues were overlooked, memorandum lacks specifics as to the conduct of officers, numerous APA errors	Total:	51

�you need to use a cover page

�This is an inter-office memorandum, address it to your department (see part 2), do not address it to me

�double space only,

�Do NOT use FULL justification, use LEFT justification

�YES, so you need to be more specific about the DISCIPLINARY actions that attach to officers who lie in official reports because such evidence must be disclose at trial as required by these cases you are briefing. You need to tie your introduction to the purpose of the memorandum with specifics, not vague generalities

�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that was posted

�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that was posted

�in case briefing, you Give facts of the case first, then the legal issue, then what the Court held. do not use the word “discussion” you gave the facts, but you did not give the legal issue or the court’s decision. in short, you did not adequately brief this case. This level of detail was explained in the weekly announcement

�do not give commentary on the case. give the legal issue and legal precedent

�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that was posted

�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that was posted

�which court? be specific

�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that was posted

�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that was posted

�this is NOT the key issue. this is not what is different about discovery in Agurs from Brady. Re-read the case

�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that was posted