John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders. Robert Taliento handled and cashed the money orders on his machine. This was the story Taliento gave to the grand jury and John Giglio was prosecuted; Taliento was named a co-conspirator but not indicted on charges. Giglio requested for a new trial was denied by lower courts but The Supreme Court reversed it. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the evidence that wasn’t revealed obligated a new trial under the due process standards that has been created in the Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois. …show more content…
The second issue is that the court held the government to failure to reveal its promise to Robert Taliento violated John Giglio due process rights established in Brady v. Maryland to receive all exculpatory evidence from the prosecution before trial. In relation, Napue v. Illinois, the undisclosed information proved that the government violated Giglio’s due process rights by presenting a false testimony from