Cases Summaries
In the U.S. judicial system, particularly in cases determined by the Supreme Court, it is the prerogative of the prosecutors to disclose and substantiate the defence evidence that is favourable to the defendant. The prosecution is therefore required to supply all the material facts and necessary information that may be used in impeaching the level of credibility of government witnesses such as the law enforcers. The decision by the Supreme Court implies that police officers who use ploys in presenting cases are more of liabilities to their agencies since when such facts are unravelled, they will be liable for paying the damages. The following paper seeks to summarize the significant issues involved in the following Supreme Court cases: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. the United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).
In Brady v. Maryland, the petitioner and a friend (companion) had been convicted of first-degree murder and subsequently sentenced to death by a Maryland court. During the trial, the petitioner agreed that he was present at the crime scene, but argued that his companion was responsible for the actual killing. In the submission to the jury by the petitioner’s counsel, the lawyer conceded that his client was guilty of the murder mentioned above case and pleaded with the judges to return a relatively lesser verdict than the capital punishment. Before the trial, the petitioner’s lawyer had made a formal request to the prosecutors to cross-examine the companion to his client’s extrajudicial profile (Fisher, Clement, & Lacour 2017). He was allowed to access several statements about the companion except one in which the companion had committed the actual killing, which was held back by the prosecution and went unnoticed by the petitioner until after his trial, conviction and sentencing by the Maryland Court of Appeals (Fisher, Clement, & Lacour 2017). However, in the post-conviction discussion, it was determined by the Maryland Court of Appeals that withholding of some vital evidence by the prosecution deprived the petitioner the due process of the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that suppression of critical evidence by the prosecution to an accused who has made a formal request for the same construes to violation of the due process of the accused irrespective of whether the prosecution suppressed the information in good or bad faith (Fisher, Clement, & Lacour 2017).
In Giglio v. the United States, the petitioner applied for a new trial following the discovery of new evidence arguing that the Government agencies responsible for the disclosure of such pieces of information had intentionally decided to withhold an alleged promise to leniency that was promised to its key witness in return for his testimony. During the hearing of the motion, the Assistant Attorney to the United States confessed before the grand jury that was listening to the case that he had indeed assured the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he would accept to make a testimony before the grand jury and at the trial. However, the Assistant who tried the case was not privy to such information and promises by the Assistant to the Attorney of the United States (Fisher, Clement, & Lacour 2017). However, the district court denied the motion for a new trial and subsequently upheld the decision of the Appellate court. Consequently, Giglio sought reprieve from the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, the main concern was whether the failure by the prosecution to disclose the promise of immunity to the key witness warranted a new trial. Based on the facts from both parties, the bench held that the failure of the Assistant to the Attorney and subsequent failure of the prosecution to present all the material facts was tantamount to violation of the due process of the appellant (Fisher, Clement, & Lacour 2017). The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence of the agreement was signed to the witness for credibility purposes. Therefore, the conviction of the witness was reversed by the Supreme Court, which also remanded the case for a new trial.
In the case of United States v Agurs, the respondent had been convicted of a second-degree murder case. He was accused of having killed Sewell with a knife. During the trial, it was reported inter alia that the diseased was in possession of two knives, one of which was used by the respondent to stub him to death. Further, the evidence presented at the trial indicated that the respondent was unscathed, yet the diseased had several wounds indicating several stubbing that led to his eventual death. The counsel to the defendant applied for a new trial pointing that he had established that Sewell’s prior criminal records were indicative of charges of assault and being in possession of deadly weapons such as knives and riffles(Fisher, Clement, & Lacour 2017). Thus the counsel argued that his client must have acted in self-defence. The counsel further alluded that the prosecution did not disclose this information to the respondent, yet it was critically significant in influencing the dimension of the case. However, the district court denied the counsel the motion for a new trial arguing that the said criminal records of the victim (Sewell) were immaterial in so far as the case was concerned. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court where it was held that since the defence did not request for the criminal records of Sewell, the failure by the prosecution to disclose such information did not interfere with the fair trial of the respondent at all (Fisher, Clement, & Lacour 2017).
References
Fisher, J. L. Clement, P. D. & Lacour E. G. Jr. (November 20, 2017). The United States Supreme Court Cases. Supreme Court of the United States