Instructions:
Since 1963, a series of United States Supreme Court case decisions have clarified that in criminal
cases, prosecutors must disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the defendant. This includes
information that may be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses, including law
enforcement officers. These decisions mean that police officers who have documented histories of lying
in official matters are liabilities to their agencies, and these histories may render them unable to testify
credibly.
Please write a professional memorandum summarizing the main issues that are involved in the
following United States Supreme Court cases. You must have 3 pages not including your title
page.There must be a clear and logical flow with thoughtful analysis as well as little to no
grammatical errors.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)
Title: Supreme Court Memorandum
I. Paragraph one and two.
A. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
1. Introduction to the case.
2. The details of the case.
3. Constituents of the fourteenth amendment.
4. Description of the importance of material evidence portrayed by the case.
II. Paragraph three.
A. Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972)
1. A display of how material evidence helped Giglio out after appealing.
III. Paragraph four.
A. United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)
1. This section contains the third case of how material evidence was used in th
supreme court to grant a new trial to a defendant.
IV. Paragraph five.
A. Conclusion.
1. Realization of the importance of material evidence in the defendants’ cases during
trial.
2. Role of prosecutors in the provision of material evidence to the defendants during
their trial.
SUPREME COURT MEMORANDUM 1
Supreme Court Memorandum
Memorandum
To: The Supreme court
From: Student’s name.
Subject: Importance of material evidence, withheld by the prosecution, in the determination of
new trials for defendants by the supreme court.
Date: July 17, 2020.
During Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.83(1963), the supreme court demonstrated how the
fourteenth amendment allowed defendants to be given evidence that would work in their favor
by the prosecutors. The court of appeal had found Brady and his compatriot Boblit guilty of
murder that had taken place during a robbery and sentenced to death (Hooper et al., 2020). Brady
admitted being involved with the theft but not the killing. However, Brad’s lawyers realized, the
prosecution withheld Boblit’s confession to the real action of murder. They appealed this to
Maryland’s court of appeal, which found that Brady’s compliance with the process that led to the
murder confirmed his guilt. However, the prosecution’s withholding of the statement led them to
grant Brandy new sentencing since he was still eligible for punishment. The court of appeal
stated that ‘The withholding of evidence useful to a defendant is a failure to adherence to the
law.’
Brad’s counsel held that he was entitled to a new trial since he was not the actual
perpetrator of the murder, which led to their appeal to the supreme court. Th supreme held the
court of appeals ruling that Brady was entitled to new sentencing in a seven to two. However, it
acknowledged the fact that the government, under the fourteenth amendment, was mandated to
provide exculpatory evidence to the defendant. It declared, “failure to provide vital information
SUPREME COURT MEMORANDUM 2
or evidence significant in a defendant’s case is a significant lack of adherence to the due process.
Whether the information works with good intent or bad intent towards his punishment.”
However, his admitting did not exonerate him, therefore the ruling to grant him new sentencing
stood.
The case proves to be similar to Giglio v. The United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972) case,
containing violations of America’s constitution’s fourteenth amendment, whereby during the
appeal, the defense came across information where the prosecution would not indict the witness
if they testified against Giglio. The case gets twisted when Robert, who was the key witness and
the person linking John Giglio in the fraud. Evidence implied that a company Hanover trust
revealed that Robert, a bank cashier, had cashed in several fake money orders. He supplied a
customer’s signature to the petitioner who, in turn, formed fake money orders valued at two
thousand three hundred dollars. Robert then ran the regular bank processions to facilitate with
the forgery. When presented with this testimony, the grand jury declared Robert an accomplice
to the fraud but was never indicted, unlike John Giglio. Two years later, the trial was done with
Taliento testifying that Giglio was the perpetrator of the fraud. The defense counsel argued that
the court disclaims Robert’s confession on the possibility that he was promised immunity. A new
motion by petitioners ensued upon arrival of evidence that an assistant DiPaola promised
leniency to Robert if he implicated Giglio. The grand jury granted, and Giglio awarded a new
trial.
The unveiling case of United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976), entails how city
prostitute, was prosecuted for the death of Sewell using weapons when fighting. Evidence
showed that Sewell carried two knives, one of which used in his murder. The evidence also
showed that the victim appeared stabbed several times, but the defendant was untouched. The
SUPREME COURT MEMORANDUM 3
defense argued that the defendant gets a new trial after confirmation that the victim Sewell had a
criminal past. The prosecution had failed to provide with the information that Sewell had several
criminal records, some of which entailed assault using knives. It proved that the defendant
murdered Sewell in self-defense. However, the District Court denied alluding to the fact that
Sewel’s criminal past was not material evidence to eradicate the fact that besides carrying to
knives, he emerged stabbed repeatedly with the respondent coming out without a single scratch.
However, on appeal, the court of appeal reversed the ruling. It declared that the victim’s criminal
record complemented material evidence and failure to produce it, entitled Agurs to a new trial
because if provided, the jury would come up with a different ruling.
The three cases reveal that prosecutors’ failure to disclose the material evidence that
helps determine a defendant’s case; the defendant shall always be awarded a new trial based on
the fourteenth amendment act, which grants every American the right to protection by the law.
However, the prosecution denies the burden of determining whether the evidence is exculpatory.
Although Brady never got awarded a new trial, his case paved the way for the use of information
purposefully abstained by the state to ensure justice to everyone who deserved it.
SUPREME COURT MEMORANDUM 4
Bibliography
Brady v. Maryland. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/490.
Giglio v. the United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-29.
Hooper, L., Marsh, J., & Yeh, B. (2020). Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United
States District and State Courts’ Rules, Orders, and Policies. Uscourts.gov. Retrieved
July 17, 2020, from https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/bradymat_1.pdf.
Paul, S. (2020). U.S. Reports: United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). The Library of
Congress. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep427097/.
Running head: SUPREME COURT MEMORANDUM 1
Supreme Court Memorandum
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
2
Supreme Court Memorandum
Memorandum
To: The Supreme court
From: Student’s name.
Subject: Importance of material evidence, withheld by the prosecution, in the determination of
new trials for defendants by the supreme court.
Date: July 17, 2020.
During Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.83(1963), the supreme court demonstrated how the
fourteenth amendment allowed defendants to be given evidence that would work in their favor
by the prosecutors. The court of appeal had found Brady and his compatriot Boblit guilty of
murder that had taken place during a robbery and sentenced to death (Hooper et al., 2020). Brady
admitted being involved with the theft but not the killing. However, Brad’s lawyers realized, the
prosecution withheld Boblit’s confession to the real action of murder. They appealed this to
Maryland’s court of appeal, which found that Brady’s compliance with the process that led to the
murder confirmed his guilt. However, the prosecution’s withholding of the statement led them to
grant Brandy new sentencing since he was still eligible for punishment. The court of appeal
stated that ‘The withholding of evidence useful to a defendant is a failure to adherence to the
law.’
Brad’s counsel held that he was entitled to a new trial since he was not the actual
perpetrator of the murder, which led to their appeal to the supreme court. Th supreme held the
court of appeals ruling that Brady was entitled to new sentencing in a seven to two. However, it
acknowledged the fact that the government, under the fourteenth amendment, was mandated to
provide exculpatory evidence to the defendant. It declared, “failure to provide vital information
3
or evidence significant in a defendant’s case is a significant lack of adherence to the due process.
Whether the information works with good intent or bad intent towards his punishment.”
However, his admitting did not exonerate him, therefore the ruling to grant him new sentencing
stood.
The case proves to be similar to Giglio v. The United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972) case,
containing violations of America’s constitution’s fourteenth amendment, whereby during the
appeal, the defense came across information where the prosecution would not indict the witness
if they testified against Giglio. The case gets twisted when Robert, who was the key witness and
the person linking John Giglio in the fraud. Evidence implied that a company Hanover trust
revealed that Robert, a bank cashier, had cashed in several fake money orders. He supplied a
customer’s signature to the petitioner who, in turn, formed fake money orders valued at two
thousand three hundred dollars. Robert then ran the regular bank processions to facilitate with
the forgery. When presented with this testimony, the grand jury declared Robert an accomplice
to the fraud but was never indicted, unlike John Giglio. Two years later, the trial was done with
Taliento testifying that Giglio was the perpetrator of the fraud. The defense counsel argued that
the court disclaims Robert’s confession on the possibility that he was promised immunity. A new
motion by petitioners ensued upon arrival of evidence that an assistant DiPaola promised
leniency to Robert if he implicated Giglio. The grand jury granted, and Giglio awarded a new
trial.
The unveiling case of United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976), entails how city
prostitute, was prosecuted for the death of Sewell using weapons when fighting. Evidence
showed that Sewell carried two knives, one of which used in his murder. The evidence also
showed that the victim appeared stabbed several times, but the defendant was untouched. The
4
defense argued that the defendant gets a new trial after confirmation that the victim Sewell had a
criminal past. The prosecution had failed to provide with the information that Sewell had several
criminal records, some of which entailed assault using knives. It proved that the defendant
murdered Sewell in self-defense. However, the District Court denied alluding to the fact that
Sewel’s criminal past was not material evidence to eradicate the fact that besides carrying to
knives, he emerged stabbed repeatedly with the respondent coming out without a single scratch.
However, on appeal, the court of appeal reversed the ruling. It declared that the victim’s criminal
record complemented material evidence and failure to produce it, entitled Agurs to a new trial
because if provided, the jury would come up with a different ruling.
The three cases reveal that prosecutors’ failure to disclose the material evidence that
helps determine a defendant’s case; the defendant shall always be awarded a new trial based on
the fourteenth amendment act, which grants every American the right to protection by the law.
However, the prosecution denies the burden of determining whether the evidence is exculpatory.
Although Brady never got awarded a new trial, his case paved the way for the use of information
purposefully abstained by the state to ensure justice to everyone who deserved it.
5
Bibliography
Brady v. Maryland. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/490.
Giglio v. the United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-29.
Hooper, L., Marsh, J., & Yeh, B. (2020). Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United
States District and State Courts’ Rules, Orders, and Policies. Uscourts.gov. Retrieved
July 17, 2020, from https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/bradymat_1.pdf.
Paul, S. (2020). U.S. Reports: United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). The Library of
Congress. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep427097/.
