2
Case Summaries
Evidence in court trials plays a major role in the decision and accuracy of a case. It is
imperative that the right evidence is presented to make for a fair trial. Depending on a plethora of
circumstances, evidence can be considered inadmissible. The rules by which evidence is
considered acceptable or not acceptable are, and should be, extremely strict. Evidence should be
as precise as possible when it comes to determining a case. All evidence should be presented, and
none should be suppressed. The prosecutor or defense should not be allowed to suppress any
evidence to favor their argument. Again, this would not result in a fair trial. Both sides are to
testify honestly and lawfully. One with a biblical worldview would ensure to uphold truthfulness
as Proverbs 12:17 (ESV) says, “Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false
witness utters deceit.” Regarding evidence, cases such as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
have set precedents to ensure a fair trial.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
John Brady and Charles Boblit were found guilty of first-degree murder of William
Brooks, whom they also robbed before the murder. Brady and Boblit were tried separately, and
Brady confessed to the robbery but not the murder; he claimed that only Boblit murdered
Brooks. Both men were sentenced to the death penalty, but Brady was unaware that Boblit had
already confessed to the murder in his trial. The evidence of Boblit’s confession was suppressed
by the prosecutor which resulted in a retrial. The suppression was considered a violation of due
process in the Fourteenth Amendment. Since this case, Brady violations have been set in place
which occurs when the prosecutor does not disclose exculpatory evidence to the defendant,
whether the prosecutor is intentional or not. The prosecutor is mandated to provide all evidence,
3
but the defense is only required to provide evidence if the state law requires it (Epstein &
Walker, n.d.). Brady violations are one of the biggest examples of prosecutorial misconduct
(Pollock, 2019, p. 272). Clafton (2020) explains that since Brady v. Maryland, materiality has
been used as a standard and is mandatory to prove harm (p. 310).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
Robert Taliento, a teller at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Corporation, admitted to giving
John Giglio signature cards of a customer at the bank. Giglio was convicted of cashing forged
money orders, and Taliento confessed to handling the money orders. Taliento was promised
immunity by U.S. Attorney DiPaola from prosecution if he were to testify against Giglio. Giglio
was then indicted and went on trial two years later, and a different U.S. Attorney was the
prosecutor. The defense found new evidence that was not disclosed of the witness’s immunity
from the first trial. The Supreme Court failed to inform the jury of Taliento’s immunity from
prosecution if he were to testify. The withholding of evidence violated due process, and a retrial
was needed. Giglio material was a result of this case, which is impeachment material that must
be disclosed (Hogan, 2022). The nondisclosure of the agreement affected the witness’s
credibility. The lack of credibility can change the outcome of the case. Proverbs 21:28 (ESV)
says, “A false witness will perish, but the man who listens to the truth will speak forever.” The
district court denied Giglio a retrial, but the Court of Appeals accepted it.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
Linda Agurs and James Sewell checked into a motel room, and Sewell was later found
dead in the room with Agurs close to his body. Sewell died of several stab wounds, and Agurs
was charged with second-degree murder. She claimed her actions were in self-defense, but she
was still found guilty. As Proverbs 18:17 (ESV) states, “The one who states his case first seems
4
right, until the other comes and examines him.” Later, Agurs’ attorney discovered that Sewell
had violent tendencies and a criminal record and called for a retrial. The attorney claimed that the
prosecutor had not disclosed pertinent information during the first trial and did not think a
request for the information was necessary. The Court of Appeals required a new trial saying that
the information that was not disclosed could have produced a different verdict from the jury. This
case determined whether to extend the process for a Brady request (Epstein & Walker, n.d.).
Conclusion
Brady v. Maryland (1963) set precedents regarding disclosing important evidence to the
defense that Giglio v. United States (1972) and United States v. Agurs (1976) built upon.
Providing exculpatory evidence to the defense results in a fair trial so the jury can have a more
accurate explanation of the case and give a just verdict. Prosecutors must be aware of all
information and evidence relating to a case to provide to the defense. It is important for
prosecutors to receive adequate training on Brady obligations so fewer wrongful convictions
occur (Pollock, 2019, p. 316). Jeremiah 19:15 (ESV) says, “You shall do no injustice in court.
You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your
neighbor.” The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides citizens the right to
a fair trial, and it is the judges’ responsibility to ensure justice.
5
References
Clafton, R. E. (2020). A Material Change to Brady: Rethinking Brady v.
Maryland, Materiality, and Criminal Discovery. Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 110(2), 307-348. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?
url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/material-change-brady-rethinking-v-
maryland/docview/2386940670/se-2
Epstein, L. & Walker, T. G. (n.d.). United States v. Agurs. Sage Publications.
https://edge.sagepub.com/conlaw/resources/rights-liberties-and-justice/12-attorneys-
trials-and-punishments/cases/united-1
Hogan, T. P. (2022). An Unfinished Symphony: Giglio v. United States and Disclosing
Impeachment Material About Law Enforcement Officers. Criminal Justice, 36(4), 11-22.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-
journals/unfinished-symphony-giglio-v-united-states/docview/2633338790/se-2
Pollock, J. M. (2019). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (10th ed.). Cengage
Custom Publishing.
The Holy Bible. (2001). English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
