Introduction:
The United States Supreme Court cases of Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and United States v. Agurs all deal with the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. These cases establish that prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose all evidence favorable to the accused. Failure to disclose this information violates due process and can result in a new trial or acquittal.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963):
Brady v. Maryland is a landmark case establishing that prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. In this case, John Brady and Charles Boblit were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Brady and Boblit
…show more content…
The Court held that prosecutors must disclose any evidence favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. If the evidence can establish the defendant's innocence or mitigate the sentence's severity, the prosecution must disclose it to the defense.
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972):
Giglio v. United States is another landmark case that deals with the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. Giglio was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States in this case. At trial, a key witness for the prosecution was a co-conspirator who had been promised immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. The prosecution failed to disclose to the defense that the witness had been promised immunity.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose the promise of immunity violated Giglio's right to due process. The Court held that prosecutors are obligated to disclose any evidence favorable to the accused and are material to guilt or punishment, including evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of a government witness. In this case, the promise of immunity was material because it could have been used to impeach the credibility of the government