DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 2
Memorandum-Part 1
TO: Liberty University Professor, Jonathan Zemke
FROM: Kelly Komaromy
Date: 4 February 2024
SUBJECT: Review of Case Issues in Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States
U.S. 150 (1972), and United States v. Argurs U.S. 97 (1976)
Main Issues: Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963)
Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963) was very controversial during a time that was already
fragile from the constant but necessary civil rights movement. John Brady’s legal representation
knew that it was going to be a tough hearing in trying to prove innocence beyond reasonable
doubt because the evidence was not in his favor even slightly, which is why his original
sentencing was death. However, “Post-Conviction Procedure Act. 222 Md. 442, 160 A.2d 912.
The petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court, and, on appeal, the Court
of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process
of law, and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of
guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167. The case is here on certiorari, 371 U.S. 812” (Justia Law,
2024). The main issue with this court case is that it took an appeal for the Maryland courts to
admit that the due process, a constitutional right, was violated. The Supreme Court resulted that
withholding excusable evidence supportive to the defendant is clearly a violation of the 14th
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He was still sentenced to life in prison in the re-trial but the
death penalty was displaced.
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 3
Main Issues: Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972)
In Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972) it was apparent that the government had
purposely withheld “an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in return for his
testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney who presented the
case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if
he testified before the grand jury and at trial. “The controversy in this case centers around the
testimony of Robert Taliento, petitioner's alleged coconspirator in the offense and the only
witness linking petitioner with the crime” (Cornell Law School, 2024) and the Attorney’s
Assistant did not disclose the leniency promise in the court hearing. The Assistant who tried the
case was unaware of the promise” (Cornell Law School, 2024). This inadequacy of proper and
legal communication between the legal representation and government entities resulted in the
failure to present all evidence, which is undoubtedly a violation of Due Process in the
Constitution.
Main Issues: United States v. Argurs U.S. 97 (1976)
The Case of United States v. Argurs U.S. 97 (1976) presents some of the more desirable
approaches compared to the Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963). “Prior decisions had established
that the defendant must bear a heavy burden to prove that the prosecutor's failure to disclose
exculpatory evidence constituted a due process violation; the agurs decision added a standard of
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 4
materiality for evidence which if not disclosed would justify a new trial” (U.S. Dept. of Justice,
2024). I disagree with the District Court’s decision that Sewell’s criminal record was not
material evidence that discloses versions of his character. Prior convictions and other incidents
involving criminal participation is a direct reflection of one’s character and demonstrates patterns
and potential for mental diagnoses or disorders.
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 5
References
G S GOLDICH, & Corporate, University of Illinois. (n.d.). NCJRS Virtual Library.
PROSECUTOR’S DUTY TO DISCLOSE AFTER UNITED STATES V AGURS |
Office of Justice Programs.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/prosecutors-duty-
disclose-after-united-states-v-agurs
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Justia Law. (n.d.).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). John Giglio, petitioner, v. United States. Legal
Information Institute .
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/405/150
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
