DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 2
Memorandum-Part 1
TO: Dr. Jade Pumphrey
FROM: Kristi Campbell
DATE: January 31, 2025
SUBJECT: United States Supreme Court Rulings
Main Issues: Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963)
John Brady had committed a robbery with another person which resulted in his
conviction of first-degree murder. According to Grossman (2016) Brady took the stand during
his trail confessing to taking part in the robbery but blamed Donald Boblit for being the
individual who committed the murder. Boblit had made a confession, but the prosecution
decided not to include it in their evidence. Brady was unaware of it until after he was convicted.
His attorneys finally requested the evidence, but the prosecution decided to suppress several of
the confession statements. Eventually Brady’s attorneys had filed an appeal with the state
Supreme Court in Maryland. According to Grossman (2016) Maryland’s Supreme Court found
that the prosecution had denied Brady’s due process rights, so his death sentence was overturned.
Eventually the prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) who
upheld Maryland’s Supreme Court ruling that Brady’s due process rights were denied by the
prosecutors when they withheld evidence which would have been favorable to Brady. According
to Clafton (2020) the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States had shown how important
it is for a defendant to have access to all evidence that will be part of their case and used against
them in trial. This case was the first case of due process which dealt with nondisclosure of
favorable evidence which did not involve any type of perjured testimony. The case is also the
landmark decision concerning the suppression of evidence,
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 3
Main Issues: Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972)
John Giglio had committed the crime of forgery and was essentially convicted of the
crime. Robert Taliento was Giglio’s partner in the forgery crime and he testified against his
friend in the trial. Taliento also admitted his role in the commission of crimes with Giglio
(Hogan, 2022). During his testimony, Taliento was asked if there was a possibility he would be
charged for his participation in the crimes and he stated that he could be, but he knew that was
not a truthful response (Grossman, 2016). According to Hogan (2022) Taliento was offered
immunity if he testified against his partner, Giglio. The prosecution stated that they were
unaware that any deals were made with Taliento if he was to testify against Giglio. The Supreme
Court of the United States had ruled that due process rights were violated due to the witness’s
credibility and the fact that the deal was not mentioned to the jury during the trial (Hogan, 2022).
This is another very important case that once again focuses on the violation of the due process
rights of a defendant.
Main Issues: United States v. Agurs U.S 97 (1976)
Linda Agurs (a prostitute) used a knife while in a fight with a male and was later
convicted of second-degree murder (Grossman, 2016). According to Agurs, the victim (James
Sewell) was threatening her with a knife which resulted in her defending herself with deadly
force. An employee from the motel had heard screaming coming from their room so they opened
the door and saw Sewell on Agurs fighting over a bowie knife. Another employee had previously
seen Sewell with a bowie knife and a pocketknife prior to the fight. During the trial, evidence
regarding the victim Sewell’s previous history of a charge of criminal assault with a deadly
weapon was not presented. It was not even given to Agurs and her defense attorneys for review.
Within 25 minutes of receiving the case, the jury found Agurs guilty of second-degree murder
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 4
since they were not left with reasonable doubt to not convict. Agurs defense motioned for a
mistrial, but it was denied by the judge. Agurs appealed her case, and the Court of Appeals
reversed the conviction because they stated that if the previous criminal history of the victim had
been revealed during the case, the results may have been different. The Supreme Court of the
United States reversed the ruling of the lower court. This was another case which represented the
importance of a defendants due process rights in the United States.
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 5
References
Clafton, R. E. (2020). A Material Change to>Brady: Rethinking>Brady v. Maryland, Materiality,
and Criminal Discovery.>The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110(2), 307–
348.
Grossman, J. M. (2016). Getting Brady Right: Why Extending Brady v. Maryland's Trial Right
to Plea Negotiations Better Protects a Defendant's Constitutional Rights in the Modern
Legal Era.Brigham Young University Law Review,2016(5), 1527-1561.
Hogan, T. P. (2022). An Unfinished Symphony: Giglio v. United States and Disclosing
Impeachment Material About Law Enforcement Officers.Criminal Justice,36(4), 11-
22.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
