DISCIPLINARY
ASSIGNMENT
2
Memorandum-Part 1
TO: United States Supreme Court
FROM: Clarissa
DATE: September 10th, 2023
SUBJECT: Summary of Key Issues in Supreme Court Cases: Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v.
United States, United States v. Agurs
Here I have created a detailed memorandum that summarizes three important and very
significant United States Supreme Court cases, they consist of: Brady v. Maryland (1963), Giglio
v. United States (1972), and United States v. Agurs (1976). These court decisions have an
important impact on the court's responsibility as they are crucial in the field of the criminal
justice system to provide the defense with proof of innocence in compliance with the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Main Issues: Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963)
Brady v. Maryland's main argument was whether the defendant's right to due process was
violated by the prosecution's hesitation to provide essential proof in the defendant's favor. In
Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court established an important concept when it determined that
it violated the defendant's right to fair and equal trial for the prosecution to withhold information
that was beneficial to the defendant. The case states that “We now hold that the suppression by
the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the
evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of
the prosecution” (Brady v Maryland 1963). The Court decided that both accrediting and
destructive material falls within this duty. The ruling truly highlighted how crucial honesty and
integrity are to the criminal justice process. This article states that “Applying explanationism to
DISCIPLINARY
ASSIGNMENT
3
criminal process demonstrates that explanationism not only is the more accurate account of
juridical proof but also better frames the criminal discovery process and ensures due process
law” (Clafton 2020). This gives a more rational approach within the court system to help get a
more accurate ruling within the case.
Main Issues: Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972)
In the case of Giglio v. United States, the defense was required to provide any promises
or rewards given to a witness as a reward for their testimony. In Giglio v. United States, the
crucial question was whether the government had violated the Brady v Maryland case by failing
to disclose a promise of mercy given to a key witness. According to the Supreme Court, any
promises, inducements, or incentives made to witnesses in return for their evidence should be
declared by the prosecution. The case stated that, “While appeal was pending in the Court of
Appeals, defense counsel discovered new evidence indicating that the Government had failed to
disclose an alleged promise made to its key witness that he would not be prosecuted if he
testified for the Government” (Giglio v. United States 1972). By Failing to hand over this
information it could jeopardize the witness's credibility, which could jeopardize the trial's
fairness. This article states, “We find that incentives have large effects on witnesses, allowing
prosecutors to routinely procure favorable testimony regardless of its truth” (Robertson and
Winkleman 2018). With this statement it brings question on whether this tactic could a reliable
way to have true supporting statements.
DISCIPLINARY
ASSIGNMENT
4
Main Issues: United States v. Agurs U.S 97 (1976)
In contrast to Brady v. Maryland, United States v. Agurs dealt with cases where the accused
failed to submit a particular request for exculpatory evidence. The case stated that, “The
prosecutor's failure to tender Sewell's criminal record to the defense did not deprive respondent
of a fair trial as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” (United States v
Agurs 1976). The Supreme Court divided cases into three distinct groups in United States v.
Agurs to further explain the prosecution's responsibility to disclose evidence. First, cases where
the prosecutor withheld evidence. Second, cases where the defense made an overall request for
evidence. Third, cases where there was no request for evidence. The court ruled that in situations
where there is no specific request, the prosecution's need to disclose is only relevant when the
material is highly exculpatory and puts doubt on the defendant's guilt. This article stated that, "it
indicated that a more lenient standard would apply to specific request cases because when the
prosecutor receives a specific and relevant request, the failure to make any response is seldom, if
ever, excusable” (Sundby 2002). This case made evident how different responsibilities depended
on how explicit the defense's request was.
References
DISCIPLINARY
ASSIGNMENT
5
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/
Clafton, R. E. (2020). A MATERIAL CHANGE TO BRADY: RETHINKING BRADY V.
MARYLAND, MATERIALITY, AND CRIMINAL DISCOVERY. Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 110(2), 307+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A623251426/LT?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=b0ce9
72d
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/
Robertson, C. T., & Winkelman, D. A. (2018, February 6). Incentives, lies, and Disclosure.
SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118359
Sundby, S. E. (2002). Fallen superheroes and constitutional mirages: The tale of Brady v.
Maryland. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.361040
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/97/#:~:text=Held%3A%20The%20prosec
utor%27s%20failure%20to,perjury%2C%20that%20the%20trial%20judge
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
