Criminal Justice Memo

This memo is intended to draw your attention to various issues of concern about certain case that have been handled by the courts. Attention is drawn to Giglio vs the United States which was specifically an appeal of the judgement delivered on the court of appeal, the respondent contested the defendants denial of a new trial. This involved counterfeit money. Attention is also drawn to United States vs Agur where the prosecutor in charge failed to disclose that the defendant’s victim was on record with long criminal history. The counsel acting on behalf of the respondent argued that disclosing such information would have strengthened their defense and led to the opening of a fresh trial. In a different case Brady vs Maryland, we note that the applicant who was later sentenced for homicide had concealed vital information about involvement in the planning and execution of the offence.

DISCUSSION

Giglio vs United States

According this particular case brief, the court reversed due to the fact that the guarantee of mercy was unable to be revealed by the prosecution. This means that the validity of the facts could not be guaranteed. The fact that there was cover-up of equipment means that the due process was misused and a fresh trial would be justified. This why there was remanding because there was full justification of a different offence.

United States vs Agur

The fact that the prosecutor was unable to expose evidence does not guarantee that a fair hearing was denied. It also shows up that record was not contacted and therefore safeguarding counsel. The judge in charge may have been persuaded by the guilt of the past ambiguity which was seen to be sensible idea. This is what led to the contemplation of the evidence which could have been found inside the record.

Defendants Agurs, was imprisoned for second-degree murder due the fact that was found guilty of stabbing to death of the complainant. The facts affirm that the both the defendant and the victim had checked in a hotel as man and spouse and the two blades were in his possession. The wife disclosed that there was also a sum of money $360 in his possession. Shouts were heard after a duration of 15 minutes by workers of the hotel. The workers then established that the two were in an enclosed area with each fighting to reach one of the blades. Police were called to the scene as the two were separated. However, the victim had already sustained injuries. No injuries were noticed on the respondent and no money was found. The litigant was charged with second degree murder. Three months later counsel applied for another trial when it was found that there was a criminal record existing on the part of the victim and this would have served to justify the cruel behavior and that the prosecution did not reveal the information.

Brady vs Maryland

In this case, brady who was the petitioner accepted that he was involved in the planning and execution of the offence but he denied that he participated in the slaughtering and revealed that his friend did it. Counsel acting on his behave argued that he should be discovered guilty and not just rushed through the process because he appeared unable in a way to defend. However, Brandy’s counsel had applied to get access to the statements in possession of the police and a good number of them were given. One report which was claimed to be crucial was however to provided. This meant that the accessory had accepted to have been involved in homicide. A new trial was therefore requested by counsel.

CONCLUSION

In United States v. Agur, Does the prosecutor have any duty vested in the constitution to voluntarily expose information and if so there should be a degree of responsibility that should guarantee it. In Giglio v. the United States the initial judgement by court of appeal and the trial court were reversed and the conviction revoked and a new trial launched. In the case of Brady v. Maryland, it w\as established that failure to disclose information was a violation of the court procedure and new proceeding to determine if guilt and if the sentence was valid sought.