Compare And Contrast Boblit And Brady

Boblit and Brady were arrested and charged with murder in the first degree. In court Brady stated that although he was an accomplice to the murder he had nothing to do with the physical act of murdering the victim. He testified that Boblit was the one responsible for the horrendous act of murder. Brady’s lawyer tried to defend him to the best of it ability so upon trial his lawyer obtained the sworn testimony of Boblit but a specific part of his testimony was never admitted into court. There was never a fact of omission of guilt admitted on the record by Boblit coping to murder even though his sworn statement admitting to the murders was on July 9,1958. So therefore, not having that key piece of evidence tainted Brady’s case which resulted

Allowing him the chance for a retrial could have possibly allowed the jury to reduce his charges instead of sentencing him to the maximum. The other possible factor could have been that once the jury heard all testimony and saw all the evidence there might have been a chance the conviction could have been overturned. The jury could have sympathized with Brady because he wasn’t the one that killed Brooks but had focused all their attention on Boblit. Upon Brady’s retrial, the defense could have stated that he acted under duress and was afraid of the consequences if he didn’t comply and participate in the crime along with Boblit. He would have been able to show more just cause that the murder was entirely the idea of his partner. Another argument could have been the fact that the other defendant’s sister was in close relation to Brady which clouded his judgement to make the right descion. If circumstances were different and the prosecution never withheld evidence from the defense the “Brady Rule” would have never been established. Following the proceedings of Brady vs. Maryland the rule was created compelling the prosecution to turn over any evidence to the defense if they require it. So therefore, if the court would have ruled in favor of Brady’s ruling there could have been a chance that Brady’s circumstances would have turned out to be in his favor. Although when Brady took part in the criminal acts with Boblit he must have known there would have been negative consequences for his part in the robbery and murder of Brooks. The crime occurred in the state of Maryland so they must have known the charges against them would be severe and they would have received the maximum punishment. Eventually the crimes would have caught up to Brady and he would have had to serve some punishment for his role in the death of