professional memorandum

Prosecutorial Discretion and Retroactive Review

Part one

MEMORANDUM

To: Professor: Judge Scott W. Naus

From: Andrade Olliver II

Date: 5/23/ 2020

Subject: Prosecutorial Discretion and Retroactive Review

The United States judicial system is considered one of the best and most effective court systems in the world. Despite this, the U.S. prosecutors have been faced with series discriminations where they failed or violated various defendants' rights in one way or another. The significant issues in most of the cases include suppression of any favorable evidence to the defendant case, avoiding putting on stand witnesses who may support defendants, use of unreliable and consistent information, and other criminal discoveries that act against defendant constitutional rights (Green & Yaroshefsky, 2016).

Case Law I: Brandy V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

According to the jury, Charles Boblit and John Brady were found to be guilty of murder. However, Brandy went further to admit in the participation of robbery but did not kill anyone in the process. Later, after both sentenced for murder, it came to Brandy's attention that despite Boblit's confession to the murder, the prosecutor still went ahead to indict both of them to the same sentence. Due to this, the Maryland Court approved considering reviewing the extent of punishment that Brandy should have been charged earlier (Clafton, 2020).

With this, the case against Brandy the prosecution can be directly accused of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which describes the due process of any case on trial. The suppression of evidence indicted Brandy of a crime he did not commit, but it disqualified him from a fair trial.

Case Law II: Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

The court sentenced John Giglio guilty of forgery and passing fake money orders. It was during his appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeal where it was discovered that the prosecutor failed to avail the information of offering immunity to key a witness to the Giglio trial. Despite the discovery of this new evidence, Giglio was denied the retrial on the basis that the court could not find any final influence decision rested upon by the court (Green & Yaroshefsky, 2016). Though the retrial was denied, Giglio retrial should have been accepted on the grounds of the witness's credibility. Therefore, the testimony against Giglio could have been clouded by the judgment of crucial witnesses trying to save himself.

At the time of the trial, Giglio's cross-examination on witness could have been a great significance on his side and maybe swinging the entire case direction. Also, if the entire conviction was based on the witness testimony, it was right for Giglio to have retrial judging on the availability of the new evidence.

Case Law III: United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)

In the case, United States V. Agurs, Agurs (prostitute) was found guilty of killing Sewell (customer). Sewell was believed to have succumbed to death on one of the two knives which he was carrying. During the trial, Agur's lawyer defended her on the basis she was only doing it out of self-defense from the victim. The court found the argument weak, and Agurs was found guilty of Sewell's murder. It was after this that Agurs lawyer found out that Sewell had a history of conviction of illegally carrying weapons and assault. The prosecution however, also failed to disclose this information on the history of the victim, which could have lifted the weight of Agur's case and the fact he died by the weapon he was also carrying (Joy, 2012).

Despite the Supreme Court reestablishing the ruling, the prosecution should not have held back the exculpatory information even if the defendant did not ask. Through this, it believed the outcome of the Agurs case could have a very different outcome if only the prosecution availed Sewell past convictions.

Analysis and Conclusion

By Brandy Case, the timing of evidence disclosure should have been consistent with the trial, and it is not prosecutor thinking to avail evidence as a favor to anyone. In Giglio's first trial, the prosecution is considered to have failed to follow the due process, which is unfair to the defendant; thus, it can be fair to offer the defendant a retrial to cross-examine the witness. The Agurs case is another example of a tinted image of the prosecution office of how withholding information has limited the defendant's ability to have a fair trial (Clafton, 2020). It is no doubt that if prosecutors could have released every detail of the investigation, some of the significant cases could have circled back in a very different direction. Furthermore, it right of every defendant that the prosecutors should follow due process as it pertains to the Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Joy, 2012).

References

Clafton, R. E. (2020). A Material Change to Brady: Rethinking Brady v. Maryland, Materiality, and Criminal Discovery. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 110, 307.

Green, B., & Yaroshefsky, E. (2016). Prosecutorial Accountability 2.0. Notre Dame L. Rev., 92, 51.

Joy, P. A. (2012). The Criminal Discovery Problem: Is Legislation a Solution. Washburn LJ, 52, 37.