Memorandum-Part 1
To: Stacey White
From: Farhat Mir
Date. 04 April, 2025
Subject: Summary of main issues in United States Supreme court cases.
Main Issue: Brady vs. Maryland U.S 83 (1963)
The fifth amendment of the United States constitution guarantees due process rights during
criminal trials.# John L. Brady vs. Maryland's landmark case is about the first conviction of Brady
in a murder charge because his due process rights were violated. “After trial, Brady learned that
Boblit previously confessed to the murder, but the prosecution suppressed that evidence for
Brady’s trial. On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that suppression of the confession
denied Brady due process and remanded the case to reconsider the question of punishment
only”(Brady v. Maryland, 2019). During the trials prosecutors failed to present some of the
evidence which would have cleared Brady from some of the charges. Brady vs. The Maryland case
is about giving priority to the defendant's Fifth Amendment right of due process and fair trial. The
major problem with this landmark case was about concealment of the evidence by the prosecutors
which caused a violation of Brady’s fourth amendment right of due process and fair trial. In the
cases where prosecutors conceal evidence it puts justice systems in jeopardy and harms the
integrity of the justice system. The Impartial Justice system is the key to create and maintain the
trust of defendants in the system. In the reopening of Brady vs. Maryland case court focused and
emphasized on the equity and openness during the trials and discouraged the concealment of any
sort of evidence which was used against the defendant." 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”# (Brady, 1963). This
concealment of the evidence created an imbalance in the case and it gave Brady a chance to
challenge the evidence against him and challenge it in the court. The second issue with this case
was whether all the exculpatory information was given to Brady by the Government to guarantee
him his right of fair trial in the court. “In criminal law , exculpatory evidence is evidence , such as a
statement, tending to excuse , justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant . In other
words, the evidence is favorable to the defendant” (Cornell Law School, 2022). Exculpatory
evidence is now known as the Brady request. During the trials it's the duty of the prosecutors to
present exonerating material to the defendant of its counsel before the trial and keep this material
up to date during the trial. During the trial all the new material which is presented must be disclosed
to the defendant before the conclusion especially when such inquiries happened within the court
during trial by way of plea agreement like John L. Brady#vs. Maryland case decision. The Brady vs.
Maryland case decision established Brady rule which makes it mandatory for the prosecutors to
disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense to ensure fair trial during the criminal cases. By
disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense it guarantees a right to the defendant to present all
the evidence which can help the defendant to a lighter sentence for acquittal from the case. The
importance of the Brady vs. The Maryland case is to make sure that all the evidence is presented to
the defendant during the trials and if there is any new evidence it must be presented before the
conclusion of the trial.# Any evidence which can benefit the defendant cannot be concealed by the
prosecutor which violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right of fair trial and due process.
After this landmark case the Brady rule has become imperative to ensure the defendant’s right of
free trial is protected. This rule makes the justice system more fair and partial and reduces false
convictions. There is another important#aspect of Brady vs. Maryland case and that's to establish
the materiality of#hidden evidence. In this case the court ruled that not all admissible evidence
constitute the violation of due process and fair trial. To prove that constitutional right was violated
the evidence must be altered substantially to#change the results of the trial. In a lot of cases
prosecution has to deal with multiple and massive amounts of evidence and this rule is to create a
middle ground for the prosecutor's logistic resources and disclosures duties.##
Main Issues: Giglio v. United States U.S 150 (1972)
The whole conspiracy of Giglio vs. U.S is about the testimony of Robert Teliento, a coconspirator
in this case. In Giglio vs. U.S case the justice system legitimacy was challenged. In this case the
defendant's rights and court’s legitimacy was on stake. “Petitioner was convicted of passing forged
money orders and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. 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”(Cornell Law School, 2020) . Giglio vs. U.S (1972) is about witness
credibility and the delivery of evidence to the defense. In Giglio’s case there was a co-defendant
Robert Teliento who took part in the investigation against Giglio. Robert was the coconspirator in
the offense and the only witness of the crime which was linking the defendant to the crime. The
major issue with this case is the violation of the Fifth Amendment right of due process. Giglio filed
a new motion for his trial claiming the government failed to disclose newly discovered evidence
against him was not disclosed which made one of his case key witnesses to return to his testimony.
Giglio was not made aware of the fact that the witness for this case who testified against Giglio
throughout this case will not be prosecuted for his evidence. “An affidavit filed by the Government
as part of its opposition to a new trial confirms petitioner's claim that a promise was made to
Taliento by one assistant, DiPaola,1 that if he testified before the grand jury and at trial he would
not be prosecuted” (Cornell Law School, 2020). #After two years of the trials Robert Teliento
testified against Giglio making him the instigator of the fraud scheme causing Giglio to get
indicted.# The jury failed to consider that the prosecutor may have covertly promised leniency#to
the witness / coconspirator. Since Giglio was not informed by the government about the leniency
offered to Telinto it was drawn into the Supreme Court that not making Giglio aware of the
leniency#given toTeliento violated his right of due process. The court agreed that the defense had a
right to know about the background of the witness testimony against him.
The second problem in this case was the effect of secret evidence in Giglio’s trial and finally
convicted him for the crime. The court found that the prosecutor's refusal to disclose newly
discovered evidence to defense was not a harmless act and the defense attorney did not have an
option to question the information concerning Teliento probably inducement. “Evidence is
exculpatory if it tends to negate the defendant’s responsibility for the charged crime and is material
to guilt or punishment” (n.d.). “Impeachment evidence is evidence that demonstrates a witness is
biased or prejudiced against a party, has some other motive to fabricate testimony, has a poor
reputation for truthfulness or has past specific incidents that are probative of the witness’
truthfulness or untruthfulness”# (n.d.). In Giglio vs. U.S court made it clear that the prosecution
must reveal any exculpatory or impeachment evidence to defense even if defense hasn't made a
formal request. It was Giglio’s Fifth Amendment right to know the leniency which was offered to
the coconspirator and the witness to challenge Teliento’s credibility and the reason he was
testifying against Giglio. In Giglio’s case the conviction was overturned since the prosecutor
violated Giglio’s Fifth Amendment right of due process. Giglio’s case was a landmark case which
focused on the offers and inducements made to the witnesses. This case is about strengthening#the
honesty of the prosecution and being upfront with the defense and presenting all the newly
discovered evidence and the leniencies offered to any of the witness or the co-defendants. It
ensures another point that prosecutors should not wait for the defense request to Preston the
evidence but they have to make sure they reveal it to the defense without any formal request since
it's a due process right which is protected by the fifth amendment of the constitution.#
Main issue: United States vs. Agurs 427 U.S 97(1976)
United States vs. Agurs was after a murder trial case where defendant Linda Agurs claimed self-
defense. In this case the murder victim James Sewell’s#violent criminal history was not disclosed
where he was convicted of assault and weapon charges. Originally the prosecutes failed to#this case
is about whether or not the prosecutor should present the evidence to the defense without the
request by the defense. United States vs. Agurs clarified the prosecutor’s obligation to provide
exculpatory evidence to the defendant in the case. This case focused on several very critical
problems in the prosecutorial process eventually making it straight to disclose procedure in
criminal cases. In this murder trial case the defendant Agurs requested evidence to undermine the
witness presented by prosecution.# The defendant in this case did not ask about the criminal history
of the victim and was not aware that the victim had a violent crime history.# The victim's criminal
and violent crime history was revealed after the rail ended. After the victim’s violent crime history
was known the defendant opened another trial claiming that the victim's criminal history was kept
hidden from him and he had no knowledge of the victim's violent crimes which could have affected
his trial.# The main issue with United States vs, Agurs was whether the prosecution's refusal to
reveal the violent crime history of the victim to the defense violated his fourteenth amendment
right of due process. “ The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence of Sewell's
criminal record was material and that its nondisclosure required a new trial because the jury might
have returned a different verdict had the evidence been received” (Cornell Law School, n.d.). In the
self-defense plea the defendant's attorneys argued that the prosecutors must have brought forward
the victim’s violent criminal history which would have helped the defendant in her self-defense
claim. The judge ruled that beforehand evidence was already presented and there was no newly
discovered evidence about the victim therefore there was no need to reveal the victim’s criminal
background. “The Government opposed the motion, arguing that there was no duty to tender
Sewell's prior record to the defense in the absence of an appropriate request; that the evidence was
readily discoverable in advance of trial and hence was not the kind of "newly discovered" evidence
justifying a new trial; and that, in all events, it was not material” (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Since
the victim’s prior criminal history was not newly discovered evidence the judge ruled there was no
need to declare the victim’s prior criminal record. The judge also declared that the Sewells' prior
convictions were non-material. In this landmark case the prosecutor’s failure to present the
victim’s prior criminal history to the defendant did not deprive the respondent of their fair trial
guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. # The United States vs. Agurs' case
provided a middle ground to protect both the defense and the government because we're defense
have rights prosecutors have responsibilities.
References:
BBrady, K. (1963). MAZE EXPERIMENT. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6(1),
28–28. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1963.6-28
brady v. Maryland. (2019). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/490
Cornell Law School. (2022, October). Exculpatory Evidence. LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exculpatory_evidence
(n.d.). Https://Www.browncountymn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/429/Brady-Giglio-Disclosure-
Policy-PDF.
Cornell Law School. (2020). John GIGLIO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. LII / Legal
Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/405/150
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Linda AGURS. LII / Legal
Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/427/97
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
