Giglio v. United States, law homework help

User Generated

Xnl4

Business Finance

Description

Discerning relevant evidence is an important government function. The prosecution has the duty to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal prosecutions.

Assignment Guidelines

  • Address the following in 800–1,000 words:
    • Brief the following cases:
      • Brady v. Maryland
      • Giglio v. United States
    • Your case briefs should follow the format below:
      • Title: Title of the selected case
      • Facts: Summary of the events, court timeline, evidence, and so forth
      • Issues: Issues that were present in this case
      • Decisions: The court's decision and the conclusion to the case
      • Reasoning: The rationale behind the final decision
      • Dissenting opinions: Any dissenting opinions, and an explanation of what they were and why they were raised
    • Address the following questions:
      • What is relevant evidence? Explain in detail.
      • What is exculpatory evidence? Explain in detail.
        • What is the importance of exculpatory evidence during trial?
        • Read and discuss Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States regarding this issue.
        • Provide any further examples that you feel are appropriate.
  • Be sure to reference all sources using APA style

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Case Briefs-outline
Thesis Statement: Concise reviews of cases that elaborate concept of evidence in relevance and
exculpatory traits.
Part I
Introducing Relevant and exculpatory evidence, the importance in litigation.
Part II
Case Briefs
A. Brady v Maryland
B. Giglio v United States


Running head: EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Exculpatory Evidence
Name
Institution

1

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

2
Exculpatory Evidence in Law

Exculpatory evidence is the complete contrast of material evidence. It is a category of
information that cannot be relied on by the courts to reach a decision. Often, the information is
relevant to the case. But then it is excluded on the basis of privilege that the courts confer to the
information. Exculpatory evidence gives the justice system a way of sifting out the lesser evil to
punish the greater one. That is a utilitarian concept that has taken root in criminal litigation.
Brady v Maryland instated the concept, and Giglio v United States later developed it.
The only way to prove a point in litigation in the courts is by adducing evidence to vouch
for its veracity. Evidence is relevant when it speaks to the facts that are before the interrogator.
Crimes comprise of the act and the intention. Only the proof of those matters is admissible. That
is what relevant evidence means. It is a class of information that is readily eligible by courts and
juries as they work towards making justifiable decisions (Anchetta, 2006).
Case Brief: Brady v Maryland
Brady v Maryland was a 1963 case that was significant because the Supreme Court
established that the prosecution must never renege on an undertaking to not prosecute to an
accused. The issue that confronted the court involved the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Amendment holds that every person has the right to Due Process. The Supreme Court had to
decide whether Due Process includes a right to the revelation of evidence that is of an
expulcatory nature.
Brady stood accused of first-degree murder in the first instance, He appealed, and the
Maryland Court of Appeal upheld the decision. During the trials, Brady confessed to being an
accomplice to the murder but then did not kill the victim. His accomplice was called Boblit. He

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

3

acceded to the killing, but then the prosecution withheld that information. At the Supreme Court,
the appellant only requested for the commutation of the death sentence from capital punishment.
The court decided that suppressing the confession violated the Fourteenth Amendment
right to due process. The prosecution used perjured evidence by failing to demonstrate reduced
culpability of Brady. During the trial, the Supreme Court observed that the equal protection
clause was not respected. The Supreme Court was convinced that Brady would not have got a
death sentence if the courts of previous instances knew that it was Boblit and not he that killed
Brooks. It altered the sentence to a lifetime behind bars because it adjudged that only an actual
murderer deserves capital punishment.
Of course, the decisions were not unanimous. Mr. Justice Harlan was emphatic in his
dissent. The main point of reference for dissenting opinions was that the judges considered
different questions. For instance, Mr. Justice Harlan preoccupied his dissent with the
consideration of whether the withheld information violated the right to equal protection. He
found that the information would have altered the extent of guilt ascribed to the defendant. He
was sure that the Court of Appeal erred by not considering the Maryland Post Conviction
Procedure Act in using the newly availed information to alter the severity of the sentencing.
Justice Black dissented to the judgment too. He held that the decision to sentence Brady
to death lacked finality because it was not the consequence of a review of all the material
evidence. The fact that the lower court disregarded some evidence meant that it lacked the
authority to determine the quantum of guilt. That was a serious question that the Supreme Court
answered in the affirmative; to give just dessert.

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

4

Case Brief: Giglio Vs. United States
In 1972, the Supreme Court found that prosecutions could not renege on exculpatory
offers. The issue that was at hand was whether it was right for the prosecution to use information
that was not to be used. It significance Is that it extended the reach of the rule in Brady v
Maryland. In fact, the case is so cen...


Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags