DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 2
Memorandum-Part 1
TO: Dr. Steve Ufford
FROM: Melissa Lang
DATE: 12 July 2025
SUBJECT: Summary of Legal Issues in Brady v. Maryland (1963), Giglio v. United States
(1972), and United States v. Agurs (1976)
Main Issues: Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963)
In 1963, Brady was found guilty of homicide committed alongside Boblit and was
sentenced to the death penalty (McCort, 2024). However, during the appeals process, it was
discovered that Boblit had previously confessed to the crime, a confession that was never
disclosed during Brady’s trial. Brady's legal counsel argued that, under the Sixth Amendment,
criminal defendants have the right to any information that could mitigate guilt or punishment
(McCort, 2024). The Supreme Court agreed, holding that "the suppression by the prosecution of
evidence favorable to the 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" (McCort, 2024). Suppressed evidence, in this context, refers to information the
defendant could not have reasonably discovered through their own efforts (McCort, 2024).
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 3
Main Issues: Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972)
The Brady ruling did not explicitly define what constituted exculpatory evidence.
However, nine years later, in Giglio v. United States, the Supreme Court expanded the definition
to include impeachment evidence information that can be used to challenge the credibility of a
witness (Hogan, 2022). The Court held that, under the Due Process Clause, impeachment
evidence must be disclosed to the defense, just like other forms of exculpatory evidence (Hogan,
2022). This ruling was particularly important because it applied to police officers, who are often
considered “career witnesses” due to their frequent courtroom testimony on behalf of the state
(McCort, 2024).
Despite its significance, Giglio left several questions unanswered regarding the scope of
impeachment disclosures. There remain no clear guidelines on what specific information
prosecutors must reveal about police officers. For instance, it is unclear whether personal details,
such as mental health issues, must be disclosed (McCort, 2024). Similarly, ambiguity remains
about past constitutional violations such as an officer conducting a search without probable cause
must be disclosed, and if so, how far back in time such disclosures should go: a few years or
even a decade (McCort, 2024).
Main Issues: United States v. Agurs U.S 97 (1976)
Fifteen years after the landmark Brady v. Maryland decision, the Supreme Court revisited
the scope of prosecutorial disclosure in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), further
defining the contours of what constitutes exculpatory evidence. In Agurs, the Court addressed
whether the prosecution’s failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence violated due
process, even when the defense had made no specific request for that evidence. The Court
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 4
ultimately held that the duty to disclose exists regardless of whether the defense explicitly asks
for the evidence, so long as the withheld information is material to the outcome of the case
(Elfarissi, 2024). This decision clarified that the government has an affirmative obligation to
disclose material exculpatory evidence that could affect the verdict, even in the absence of a
defense request, especially when such evidence could cast doubt on the credibility of a witness or
the reliability of the prosecution's case.
The Agurs ruling built upon the foundation established in Brady, reinforcing that due
process is not a mere procedural formality, but a constitutional safeguard aimed at ensuring
fairness in criminal trials. The Court emphasized that the central concern is not whether the
evidence was requested, but whether the suppression of evidence undermines confidence in the
trial's outcome (Elfarissi, 2024). In doing so, Agurs also addressed the issue of post-trial
discovery of exculpatory information, signaling that the responsibility of the prosecution to
ensure a fair trial persists beyond the courtroom and into the appellate process.
Moreover, the Court in Agurs introduced a more nuanced standard of materiality, stating
that evidence must be disclosed if it creates a "reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist"
(U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112). This shifted the legal focus from the mere presence of favorable
evidence to the potential impact it could have had on the jury’s decision. As legal scholar
Elfarissi (2024) explains, this case made it clear that the integrity of the criminal justice process
depends not just on what is presented in court, but also on what may be improperly withheld
from it. The Agurs decision underscored that the prosecutorial obligation to disclose is rooted in
the principle of fairness and justice not simply tactical advantage and that failure to meet this
obligation erodes public trust in the judicial system.
DISCIPLINARY ASSIGNMENT 5
References
Elfarissi, R. (2024). Reimagining Youngblood's Bad Faith Requirement Safeguarding Criminal
Defendants' Due Process Rights Through a Burden-Shifting Framework.Michigan Law
Review,123(1),51-78. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?
url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly- journals/reimagining-youngbloods-bad-faith-
requirement/docview/3160114286/se-2
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.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-
journals/unfinished-symphony-giglio-v-united-states/docview/2633338790/se-2
McCort, S. N. (2024). A Simple Solution to a Complicated Problem: Giglio Disclosures in Iowa
Criminal Cases. Iowa Law Review, 109(5), 2293+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A811721582/LT?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=056df
432https://www.ncbar.gov/media/121001/journal-11-2.pdf.
