ipl-logo

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Brady V. Bobti

596 Words3 Pages

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

Show More
Related
993 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1293 Words | 6 Pages

Brady v. Maryland (1963) Case facts: Concerning the case of Brady v. Maryland, Brady was convicted of murder in the first degree; he admitted his involvement in the murder but claimed that his partner, Boblit actually committed the murder. Boblit confessed to the police that he committed the murder, prior to the trial. Brady’s defense team requested the statements Boblit made to the police; the statement of confession was withheld from the defense team. Proverbs 24:28 and Proverbs 25:8 (English Standard Version) explains that “we are not to be a witness against our neighbors without cause, do not deceive with our lips, and do not hastily bring into court, for what will we do in the end, when our neighbor puts us to shame.” At trial, when the issue was raised regarding the withheld statement, Brady’s attorney requested a new trial, due to suppression of evidence.

Read More
537 Words | 3 Pages

State, 332 Ga. App. 546, 774 S.E.2d 126 (2015) • Generally, if the indictment sets out the offense as done in a particular way, the proof must show it so, or there will be a variance. Martinez v. State, 750 S.E.2d 504 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). • There is no requirement that the State present testimony that precisely follows the language found in the indictment.

Read More
910 Words | 4 Pages

In United States v. Agurs, the Court set out three situations in which the Brady Rule applies: 1) the government must disclose material evidence that it is aware of or should be aware of that indicates a witness perjured his/her testimony, 2) the government must disclose material evidence specifically requested by the defendant before trial, and 3) the government must disclose exculpatory evidence even if the defendant does not make a request or only makes a general request for such evidence. The Court’s decision in Agurs also provided that the definition of “material evidence” for purposes of the Brady Rule is information that creates a reasonable doubt of the defendants’

Read More
1244 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
829 Words | 4 Pages

I have given this investigation careful consideration due to Officer Noname’s length of service within the Spring Falls Police Department. Through the facts given and statements made by Officer Noname, I am requesting immediate termination of employment. By lying to investigating officials in his involvement with the misuse of department resources, Officer Noname has become untrustworthy and his credibility as an officer of the law has been brought into question. It is from this incident that if Officer Noname were to give testimony in a hearing, his credibility would be called upon due to his dishonesty during this investigation. In Brady v. Marland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), the Supreme Court has imposed rulings that all exculpatory evidence must be disclosed and that the defendant has a right to learn of any incriminating and/or discrediting information pertaining to the witnesses against them and may result in impeachment of witness testimony.

Read More
804 Words | 4 Pages

This concern led to absence of expertise dependability on the part of the state. It was out of this failing that the state had a direct impact on the case. This aggravating conduct provides a superb outline for prospective courts, owing to the fact that the methodologies engaged by the FBI do not diverge considerably across circumstances. This exceedingly speculative testimony brings about concerns to the courts on the specifics that should be of concern in such

Read More
119 Words | 1 Pages

Wrongful convictions are a problem that most government officials won’t admit. The United States and other countries such as Australia have been susceptible to these miscarriages of justice. This can arise from a snowball effect of scenarios such as witness misidentification, perjured testimonies, coercive methods of interrogation, prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective counsel. These are some of the reasons that can potentially lead innocent people to be convicted of crimes they did not commit. The thousands of exonerations in the United States has caused concern for other nations to reevaluate their criminal justice system.

Read More
1493 Words | 6 Pages

Eroy Brown was a convicted murderer who faced several trials throughout his life. The outcome of his trials was influenced by several factors, including the evidence presented in court, the jurors’ biases, and the actions of the prosecution and defense. One of the most significant factors that influenced the outcome of Eroy Brown’s trials was the evidence presented in court. In some cases, the evidence was conclusive and left no doubt as to Brown’s guilt or innocence. For example, in one of his trials, Brown was convicted of murdering a fellow inmate based on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence found at the scene of the crime.

Read More
169 Words | 1 Pages

Since the stakes are so high in these cases, there is a high burden of proof on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond

Read More
390 Words | 2 Pages

In the 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any government state or federal has the duty to disclose to a defendant and his counsel any exculpatory information or evidence in its possession. If the

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

Read More
749 Words | 3 Pages

This can be seen in the case of Richard Roman, a case in 1988 that involved a murder accusation where Roman confessed under questionable conditions. As the case progressed through the French judicial system, higher courts scrutinized the confession's methods, questioning its legitimacy and fairness. This case exemplifies evidence loyalty's flexibility, emphasizing the judicial system's commitment to reevaluating early evidence for

Read More
1030 Words | 5 Pages

The Constitution states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” ( US Constitution) As you can see, the Bill of Rights 6th Amendment allows the accused to understand the charges against them: the accused is told what he/ she is being accused of, who is accusing them, and is allowed to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Moreover, it allows for the movement of rightful convictions.

Read More
1011 Words | 5 Pages

This is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All

Read More

More about Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Brady V. Bobti

Related Topics

Open Document