Case Summary: Brady Vs. Maryland, 373 US

Case Summary Part 1 The prosecution is legally bound to disclose to the defense evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Three examples of the prosecutor’s obligations to disclose evidence 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). According to Rule 3.8, “the prosecutor must make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by

Maryland, Brady and his partner, Boblit, were found guilty of murder in the first degree and were sentenced to death. Upon appeal, their convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. 220 Md. 454, 154 A.2d 434 (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). Their trials were separate with Brady being tried first. Brady took the stand and admitted his participation in the crime, but he claimed that Boblit did the actual killing. In his summation to the jury, Brady's counsel conceded that Brady was guilty of murder in the first degree, asking only that the jury return that verdict "without capital punishment” (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). The prosecution did not release Boblit’s confession to defense counsel until after the trial and conviction. The defense wanted to use the statement to reduce Brady’s sentence. Since Brady was found guilty of first degree murder, there was no reduction possible in his sentence according to Maryland law. A unanimous Court of Appeals said that nothing in Boblit’s confession "could have reduced the appellant Brady's offense below murder in the first degree" (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). This means that the admissibility of the confession on the issue of innocence or guilt had no reflection on Brady’s guilt or