Running head: CJUS 520 Disciplinary Assignment Part 1 1
Disciplinary Assignment Part
1 Liberty University
CJUS 520
Liberty University
CJUS 520 Disciplinary Assignment Part 1
Memorandum
To: Dr. Erica Hutton
From: Alexis Fitzgerald
CC: Dr. Jerry Falwell
Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
In the case Brady vs. Maryland, Brady, the defendant, and his co-defendant, were
convicted of first-degree murder and were sentenced to death. During the trial, Brady admitted
to being at the crime scene and participating in the robbery but, never admitted to committing to
the murder. He stated that his partner was the one who carried out with the murder and is the one
guilty of murder. His attorney, did not argue that Brady was indeed guilty, he or she only
pleaded with the jury to not return with capital punishment (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). During
this time, the attorney was not aware that Brady’s partner had admitted to murdering the victim
alone. Prior to the beginning of the trial, Brady’s attorney requested to see all the evidence that
the prosecutors had in their possession. His lawyer was not informed of the confession until after
Brady was trialed, convicted, and sentenced to death. By law, the prosecutors are required to
disclose any and all evidence to the defense that is favorable to the defendant. Failure to
disclosing or withholding information, denies the defendant due process of law. By them
withholding the information a new trial had to be set to determine a new punishment for Brady.
Since there was already a confession from Brady about his participation in the crime, the overall
determination was what punishment he would receive for the crime he actually committed. Due
to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose information that could benefit the defendant, Brady’s Fifth
Amendment rights were violated. Therefore, violation of the defendants’ rights should result in a
new trial (Brady v. Maryland, 1963).
Giglio vs. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
In Giglio vs. United States, the defendant Giglio, was being prosecuted for forging $2300
in money orders. This was considered a lot of money during this time. The debate in this case
derived from the testimony of Giglio’s co-conspirator who was Robert Taliento. Taliento was the
only witness working with the Prosecution that linked Giglio to the crime. Taliento was able to
strike a deal with the U.S. Attorney, which stated that if he testified against Giglio, he would not
be prosecuted. Taliento then testified that while he was a teller at a bank, he would provide
customer’s signature cards to Giglio, which were then used to forge the $2300 worth of money
orders (Giglio v. United States, 1972). It took two years for Giglio’s trial to commence and he
was sentenced to five years in prison. While awaiting for his appeal, Giglio’s attorneys
discovered the government failed to disclose facts pertaining to Taliento being promised
immunity in exchange for his testimony. For that reason, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in
order to determine if the evidence withheld would require a new trial under the due process
criteria per Brady vs. Maryland trial, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). It was then determined that because of
the withholding pertinent information, which was the responsibility of the prosecutor, Giglio’s
Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The court had to rule that due process required Giglio to
have a new trial. Although there probably wouldn’t have been a change in the outcome of his
trial, it is important that the prosecution does not withhold any information pertaining to the trial
(Giglio v. United States, 1972).
United States vs. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
In the United States vs. Agurs, Agurs, the defendant was on trial for second-degree
murder for killing her estranged husband with a knife during a domestic dispute. The victim had
been stabbed repeatedly and the accused was not injured. Agurs claimed to have killed her
husband in self-defense. Her husband, Sewell, had previous charges of assault and carrying a
deadly weapon, however, the prosecutor failed to disclose this information to Agurs’ attorney
(United States vs. Agurs, 1976).. Once Agurs’ attorney discovered this information, they
motioned for a new trial. The new trial was denied by the district court on the grounds that
Sewell’s criminal record was not relevant to the case at hand. The Court of Appeals reversed
this ruling because failure to disclose this information did not allow for a fair trial and violated
the due process of law of the defendant and the case was re-tried (United States vs. Agurs, 1976).
Liberty University
CJUS 520 Disciplinary Assignment Part 2
Memorandum
To: Dr. Erica Hutton
From: Alexis Fitzgerald
CC: Dr. Jerry Falwell
This memorandum will address an investigation on an officer in the department that he
was using a unit computer for inappropriate websites to search pornography. While being
question by his superiors, the officer denied all of the allegations pertaining to the incident.
However, after thorough investigation, it was determined that the officer’s password was used
in order to access the pornographic websites. After the findings, the officer admitted that he lied
about visiting the websites and assured this will never happen again. This officer has been in the
agency for 15 years and has only had one discipline during this time. As a law enforcement
officer, it is important to stay credible and honest throughout your career. This memorandum
with discuss the outcome for the officer with supporting court cases for the situation.
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995)
In the case of Kyles v. Whitley, the defendant Kyles, was on trial for first degree murder.
He was accused of murdering a sixty year old woman in the parking lot of the grocery store she
was shopping at. There was an informant, Beanie, whose name changed three times during his
interactions with the police. Beanie was sold the murder vehicle by Kyles; in which, he called the
police when he realized the car that he brought was the vehicle for the crime so he called the
police and gave them all information on how the car was purchased. The informant’s information
changed regarding the crime once he had face to face contact with law enforcement. The
defendant appealed his case with claims that the state had favorable evidence towards him that
they did not disclose before or after the trial (Kyles v. Whitley, 1995). The state Supreme Court
denied petitioner’s application for discretionary review. The petition for habeas corpus was filed
in the district court and was also denied. The Supreme Court then granted cert and reversed and
ordered a new trial stating that the evidence withheld by the State in this s case raised a
reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result. In this case, the
courts determined evidence that is considered favorable and has the opportunity to change the
outcome of the trial is defined as material evidence. This case supports that the department had
the right to investigate the officer to ensure that he wasn’t hiding information from the
department (Kyles v. Whitley, 1995).
United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985)
In the case of United States v. Bagley, Bagley the defendant, was indicted on fifteen
charges of violating federal narcotics and firearm statutes. Before the trial, Bagley sought
discovery of the prosecution’s witnesses and any details made in exchange of their testimony.
The government stated that each informant spoke without any threats, rewards, or promises of
rewards. The witnesses testified and Bagley was convicted of all drug charges, but the firearm
charges were dropped. Later, Bagley received copies of ATF (Freedom of Information Act) from
contracts stating that the witnesses were promised a future payment of 300 dollars (United States
v. Bagley, 1985). The defendant then claimed that the government had violated his due process
rights by withholding evidence that the defense could have utilized in favor of the defendant to
impeach the witnesses. The district court stated that the evidence was not important because the
case was going to have the same outcome. The court of appeals reversed the ruling, stating
Bagley was entitled to automatic reversal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1964). The
United States Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the circumstances. The department
can utilize this case within this situation because of the sworn statement by the officer. By him
lying to us, we can question all of the other sworn statements this officer has made during his
testimonies (United States v. Bagley, 1985).
The foundation of law enforcement is built off of protecting citizens and doing this you
have to be honest and credible. Our organization takes pride in having credible officers who are
able to be honest and trustworthy. Within our department, it is prohibited to access websites that
are inappropriate or even personal while on the clock. Even with this officer being in this
department for over 15 years, we will not tolerate distrustful actions. This officer is well aware of
the policy and the circumstances surrounding what did and he knows that honesty within our
organization is the number one rule. If this officer is given a second chance, how could we be
able to trust his credibility and reliability on the job every day? We will not know if he is lying or
not. With all of the circumstances given, I do not think it is appropriate for the officer to continue
is career within this organization. The officer has lost the trust and is no longer deemed credible
within the agency; which is a problem because he may have to testify in court.
References
Brady v. Maryland (1963). U.S. Supreme Court (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2019,
from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/373/83.html
Giglio v. United States (1972). U.S. Supreme Court (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/405/150.html.
Kyles v. Whitley (1995). U.S. Supreme Court (n.d). Retrieved May 3, 2019, from
United States v. Agurs (1976). U.S. Supreme Court (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/427/97.html
United States v. Bagley (1985). U.S. Supreme Court (n.d). Retrieved May 3, 2019,
from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/473/667.html
