Parks 1
Emma Parks
Dr. Lewis
Disciplinary Paper 1
October 11, 2020
Parks 2
Memorandum
Date: October 11, 2020
To: Dr. Lewis
From: Emma Parks
Subject: Disciplinary Paper 1
I would like to show you some of the important cases in this class this semester. That I have been
reviewing and discussing in class. I feel these cases are an important take on the law
enforcement, the courts and the correctional system. These cases have shown a big impression on
how criminal justice system and its’ task force go through their jobs each day. The cases also
have shown an impression on exculpatory evidence, the findings , and government witness
credibility, including all the officers involved. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is
sympathetic to the defendant, which could not find him or her or may show his or she’s guilt
toward a case. The cases that I will be discussing in this paper are the following three cases, they
are Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), and
United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976).
Paragraph One: Brady v. Maryland
In the Brady vs. Maryland case, Brady the defendant and his confidants were condemned of
first-degree murder and were penalized to death because of this case. During the trial, Brady self-
confessed to being at the location of the crime and having a hand in the killing, but he also told
the court that his acquaintances were at the scene committing the same crime. During this,
Brady’s defense team asked for the written testimony from his companion, Boblit. All of the men
Parks 3
accused of this crime went to trial at different times, but still didn’t acquire all of them. The
prosecution clumsily forgot to include the stamen given by Mr. Boblit about his confession to the
crime that he was committing. This would have given Brady a lesser sentence if it was included
in the trial in the first place. When this was brought into the light, the prosecution showed that
they did not give up all information needed to have a fair trial that could have saved Brady from
a worser sentence. Brady’s lawyer did not try to prove that his client wasn’t guilty, but only
implored the jury to not come back with a verdict for capital punishment. (Kemp). A petition for
post-conviction relief was brought up and pushed for, but unfortunately repressed and rejected.
However, on the other hand, the court did not permit a new trial for Brady, the court did go back
over and re-think the current sentence for Brady. The court granted him that his sentence would
be life in prison rather than the death penalty, even though the prosecution did not give up viable
information that could have helped the case in the long run.
Brady v. Maryland was created on the grounds so that the prosecution had to hand over all and
any exculpatory evidence to the defendant. Brady also created so that the prosecution must
contact the defendant at all times if a police officer has been suspected of lying about his or her
official work capacity previous cases. Brady also told the prosecution that in all criminal trials
that have responsibility and duty to turn over all proof and knowledge that is promising to the
defense and all resources connecting to guilty or punishable sentence. Brady was shown by the
prosecution finding prerequisites linking to handing over exculpatory evidence like it was the
defendant’s due process rights, but in reality, it wasn’t.
Paragraph Two: Giglio v. United States
Parks 4
In this case, the person in question Giglio was charged and accused for duplicating $2300 in
money orders. This in any country or society is a lot of money even for this time-period. The
argument of this case derivative from the authentication of Giglio’s Co-conspirator Robert
Taliento. Taliento was the only onlooker that the prosecution could actually pin Giglio to the
crime and the scene. Taliento was able to receive and accept a bargain with the U.S. Attorney to
go before the judge and explain what he saw to use against Giglio. For this, he will not be
charged for the crime and it was all pinned it all on Giglio. Taliento came into court and told his
testimony, while at the same time he was a teller for a bank (Giglio v. United States). Mr. Taliento
offered several of other people’s signing cards to Giglio. Because of this they were used to counterfeit
$2300 worth of money orders. Giglio’s trial did not begin until a couple years later, when he was charged
and penalized to five years in prison. While Giglio was postponed for appeal, it was exposed by his
lawyer that the government vowed Taliento immunity in trade for his testimony. When the court found
this out, they argued that this information wasn’t told to the court during the trial. In fact, the Supreme
Court granted certiorari in order to control if evidence was ever not given to the court then this would
entail a mis trial to have a brand-new trial under the due process criteria per Brady vs. Maryland trial, 373
U.S. 83 (1963). It was then concluded that if related material was not given to the court which was the
obligation of the prosecution. Failure to follow this is against Giglio’s Fifth Amendment rights. The court
had to rule that due process is obligated to give Giglio a new trial.
Paragraph Three: United States v. Agurs
The defendant was found and charged for second-degree murder in the killing of James Swell.
The defendant and the victim found and checked into a hotel on September 24, 1971. These two
people were a husband and wife. The victim was wounded and injured during a domestic
Parks 5
violence altercation by the defendant and left with no injuries. It is stated by Agurs by pleading
the self-defense rule that the murder was because the defendant’s life felt in danger. The victim
that was murdered was announced dead when they arrived at the hospital. The victim actually
was carrying the weapon in question on her person at the time of the murder, also reports say
that James Swell was already carrying two knives on his person before the crime occurred
(United States). The defendant's advisors went back and forth on the decision of self-defense,
however, they still had to handle the results of the second- degree murder charge against him.
Later, the defense advisors tried to ask the court for a petition and tried to bring forth a motion to
as for a retrial due to having new incoming evidence that the victim discovered. James Swell has
a previous criminal history which means there is proof of serious violent behavior, which would
prosecute him beyond a reasonable doubt of his past violent nature and behavior.
This information and findings that were not disclosed to the defense lawyers was allowed into
court according to the standards and regulations of the United States Courts of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Even though the sufferer’s Fifth Amendment rights were not
adequately carried out and followed, she was not ruled to have a fair trial due to not have
adequate findings. In conclusion, the question at hand is did the prosecution have constitutional
responsibility to inform important documents and resources to the defense, and if so, what
traditional information needs to be given to increase it to that kind of responsibility?
Parks 6
References
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/.
Kemp, D. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/97/.
