DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT
Memorandum-Part 1
TO: Recipient
FROM: Edna Rodriguez
DATE: April 6, 2024
SUBJECT:
Main Issues: Brady v. Maryland U.S (1963)
The main unresolved matter in the case at hand is that the prosecution disregarded evidence that
could have mitigated the defendant's (Brady) sentence, in violation of the Brady rule. As stated
in the case, Brady and his friend Boblit were executed after one of their acquaintances, William
Brooks, was killed (Patterson, 2021). But the prosecutors hide the evidence that Boblit actually
carried out the murder when the case goes to trial. Boblit claimed in his written statement that he
was the one who actually killed the victim. Brady did, however, participate in the theft scheme,
which was executed prior to the victim's death.
The case's second problem is that the consequences of suppressing incriminating evidence were
never adhered to. Brady's attorney filed an appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the lower
court's decision, holding that Brady could not have been exonerated by the suppressed evidence.
The Brady rule on exculpatory evidence, according to the Supreme Court, only matters if the
evidence's disclosure would have resulted in a different conviction or verdict (Patterson, 2021).
Brady, the accused, was subsequently granted a new trial and a life sentence with the possibility
of release. The case at hand indicates that the primary concerns center on the prosecution's
credibility and the final verdict's credibility.
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT
Main Issues: Giglio v. the United States 150 (1972)
The primary concern in the aforementioned case stems from the historic ruling made by
the Supreme Court in Giglio's case. The Supreme Court was unable to start a new trial despite
the requirement that the court do so if the exculpatory evidence is withheld because the court's
decision would not have been affected by the withholding of material evidence that would have
refuted the accused's guilt (Law "n.p"). As demonstrated by the case, Talento was given a
promise by the prosecutor that he would not face charges if he provided testimony against the
suspect. But the prosecutor who had vowed to defend Talento was not present during the trial
itself. As a result, Talento was prosecuted with the court stating that there was no difference
between either of the scenarios.
The second problem in Giglio's case is that Talento had broken the law, and the decision
would not take into account the prosecutor's authority or his failure to notify the current
prosecutor about the promise. Talento attempted to convince the judge during the trial that he
was not informed that he would face charges (Law "n.p"). The court, however, rejected any
attempts at reconciliation between the then-prosecutor and the former prosecutor, ruling that
none of them had the legal authority to make such a pledge. The court went on to say that the
revelation of the promise would not have changed the outcome in any case.
Main Issues: United States v. Agurs U.S 97 (1976)
The primary problem in the aforementioned case is that the murder victim had a criminal
history, having been found to have been assaulted multiple times and to have been in possession
of illicit weapons. But the respondent who killed him was put on trial without taking the victim's
past into account (Law, "n.p"). Sewell, the victim, had a criminal past, according to the evidence
in the case. In addition, Sewell had two knives on him, suggesting that he posed a risk to public
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT
safety. But the jury's decision was rendered without taking these things into account, which is
regarded as a Brady law violation.
The jury and the court concluded that the victim's criminal history would not have an impact on
the jury's decision. Furthermore, Sewell's killing could not be justified by the evidence presented
in court, which showed that he had a criminal history and was carrying weapons. According to
the case, the District court rejects the evidence that suggests Sewell's criminal history may be
relevant because it doesn't provide insight into his personality (Law "n.p"). Furthermore, the
assertion that the respondent was acting in self-defense ran counter to the reality that Sewell had
multiple stab wounds to his body and the respondent had no injuries. Consequently, the
respondent's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the exculpatory rule was unable to
clear her. The court then used the rule that permits the jury to leave out a constitutional
obligation if it is important enough to the defendant's ultimate fair trial.
References
Law, U. Navarro v. State Appellant's Brief Dckt. 40469.
