The Case The case involved the shooting of five friends in a house during an armed robbery. One of the witnesses Larry Boatner stated that he was at a friend’s house shortly after Juan Smith and two other people entered the house. They demanded money and drugs which resulted in the shooting that left five of Larry’s friends dead. During the trial Boatner identified Smith as one of the gunmen who entered the house where the shooting took place. Larry Boatner was the only survivor which he then became the sole eye witness to the case. He identified Smith as one of the perpetrators five months after the murder ("Smith V. Cain", 2017). Larry saw the photo of Smith in a local newspaper identifying Smith and linking him to the case as one of the perpetrators.
The court convicted Smith on five counts of first degree murder charges. Following the conviction, he was convicted and received
…show more content…
This is in respect to the evidence obtained or evidence given to the defendant or withheld by the prosecution. If the statements affect the decision of the court or the verdict of the jury then Brady violation in this case may affect the due process. It is crucial to Note that the statements are first heard by a court before a ruling on whether the Evidence may affect the case. If the evidence has a probability of changing the verdict then it is said to affect the due process. On the other hand of the disclosed evidence has no probability of affecting the case, then it is not probable to affect the due process. Brady violation affects the due process if the provisions of the new evidence affects the case. In case of inadequate information the jury may state that the information does not amount to Brady Violation. Thus Brady rule violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution ("Smith v. Cain (10-8145)",