Criminal justice system and its environment

oid:7293:142285812Similarity Report ID:

PAPER NAME

Disciplinary Assignment REVISED.docx AUTHOR

-

WORD COUNT

873 Words CHARACTER COUNT

4944 Characters

PAGE COUNT

5 Pages FILE SIZE

19.0KB

SUBMISSION DATE

Apr 10, 2022 9:43 PM EDT REPORT DATE

Apr 10, 2022 9:44 PM EDT

48% Overall Similarity The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.

33% Internet database 4% Publications database

Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database

26% Submitted Works database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Bibliographic material Quoted material

Summary

DISCIPLINARY ASIGNMENT 1

Disciplinary Assignment: The Criminal Justice System in Its Environment

Treylesia Alston

Liberty University

CJUS 520

Dr.Pumphrey

April 3, 2022

2

5

9

DISCIPLINARY ASIGNMENT 2

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

Officers who have a recorded history of lying-in official matters are a liability to their

agency, and their records may make them untrustworthy witnesses. Since 1963, a sequence of

Supreme Court judgments has explained that attorneys in criminal trials must reveal to the

defence evidence in the defendant`s favour.The primary holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.S. 83 (1963), was that the refusal of the government to give relevant particulars that is

pertinent to the decision of a villain defendant's guilt or punishment breaches the accused's

entitlement to fair trial under the law (Justia v. US Supreme Court, 2022).

In Anne Arundel County`s state Circuit Court, Charles Boblit and John Brady were

deemed culpable of premeditated killing by a Maryland jury. Brady argued that he was a

participant in the previous burglary except the murder. During conviction, both offenders

were sentenced to death. Following the hearing, Brady realized that Boblit had before then,

admitted to the homicide, but the prosecuting attorney quashed Brady's lawsuit evidence. On

retrial, the Maryland Court of Appeals determined that quashing Brady's admission infringed

his entitlement to fair trial, and the suit was remanded to address just the question of

retribution (Oyez, 2022).

The Supreme Court decreed that the prosecuting attorney's motion to suppress proof

contravened the Fourteenth Amendment`s Due Process Clause. The tribunal equally

determined that, under the laws of Maryland state, Brady's admission could not vindicate

him; therefore, a detention simply for reconsideration of his retribution was material (Oyez,

2022).

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

In Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), it was determined that the Assistant's

absence of power was neither controlling, nor is his refusal to tell his bosses and companions,

1

1

1

8

DISCIPLINARY ASIGNMENT 3

and the prosecuting authority's responsibility to give out all significant documentation to the

tribunal was not attained, resulting in a breach of fair trial and the need for a new trial (Justia

v. US Supreme Court, 2022). It was established that John Giglio was culpable of forging

money orders. Giglio's counsel uncovered fresh proof whilst his plea to the Second Circuit

Court of Appeals of the United States was underway Pursuant to the proof, the prosecuting

authority neglected to reveal that it provided protection in reciprocation for an affidavit in

opposition to Giglio. The district court rejected Giglio's plea for a fresh hearing, inferring that

the mistake had no significance on the outcome. The Court of Appeals confirmed the

judgement (Oyez, 2022).

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

In United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976), it was established that the prosecuting

attorney's negligence to submit Sewell's rap sheet to the defense did not deny the defendant of

due process as affirmed by the Fifth Amendment`s Due Process Clause, where it seems that

the defense counsel did not ask for the record and there was no inference of lying under oath

and that the trial judge stood persuaded of defendant's culpability without a shadow of

uncertainty after taking into consideration the Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 and Mooney

v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103 (Justia, US Supreme Court, 2022).

Defendant was deemed culpable of second-degree homicide for stabbing with a blade

one Sewell to death in the course of a brawl. Proof at the hearing revealed, in addition to

other things, that Sewell had on him two knives soon prior to the death, as well as the one

which the defendant attacked him with, that he had been stabbed repeatedly, but that

defendant was unharmed. Defendant's attorney then made an application for a fresh hearing,

claiming that he found out Sewell had a previous history of crime (inclusive of pleading

guilty to battery and being in possession of a dangerous weapon, evidently a knife) that 3

4

4

6

7

10

11

12

13

14

DISCIPLINARY ASIGNMENT 4

would have supported the reasoning that defendant reacted in self-protection and that the

prosecuting attorney did not reveal to the defense these details.

The District Court rebutted the submission, stating that the proof of Sewell's history

of crime was not relevant and significant since it disclosed not a thing about his personality

that was not hitherto obvious from the uncontradicted affirmation, especially the reality that

he had on him two knives, emphasizing the disparity linking the self-protection assertion and

the certainty that Sewell was again and again knifed whilst defendant got away unharmed.

The Court of Appeals overturned the verdict that the proof of Sewell's delinquent past was of

great significance. The failure to make it known warranted a fresh hearing as the jury might

have arrived at a contrasting judgment if the proof was presented.

2

2

3

DISCIPLINARY ASIGNMENT 5

Reference

Justia; US Supreme Court, (2022). Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/#:~:text=Maryland%2C%20373%20U.S.

%2083%20(1963)&text=The%20government's%20withholding%20of%20evidence,consti

tutional%20right%20to%20due%20process.

Justia; U.S. Supreme Court, (2022). Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/

Justia; U.S. Supreme Court, (2022). United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/97/

Oyez; Legal Information Institute. Brady v. Maryland.

Brady v. Maryland. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/490 Oyez; Legal Information Institute. Giglio v. United

States.

Giglio v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-29

oid:7293:142285812Similarity Report ID:

48% Overall Similarity Top sources found in the following databases:

33% Internet database 4% Publications database

Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database

26% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES

The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be displayed.

1 coursehero.com

26% Internet

2 Liberty University on 2021-08-22

4% Submitted works

3 Southern New Hampshire University - Continuing Education on 2022-0...

3% Submitted works

4 Liberty University on 2022-03-23

3% Submitted works

5 Liberty University on 2022-03-23

2% Submitted works

6 caselaw.findlaw.com

2% Internet

7 jm919846758.files.wordpress.com

1% Internet

8 Liberty University on 2021-08-15

1% Submitted works

Sources overview

oid:7293:142285812Similarity Report ID:

9 Liberty University on 2022-03-01

1% Submitted works

10 colorado-technical-university on 2019-08-16

1% Submitted works

11 Liberty University on 2022-03-23

<1% Submitted works

12 Colorado Technical University on 2021-11-03

<1% Submitted works

13 Liberty University on 2022-04-05

<1% Submitted works

14 Colorado Technical University on 2021-12-14

<1% Submitted works

Sources overview