Nature of the Case The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Facts …show more content…
The Government 's evidence at trial showed that in June 1966 officials at the Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. discovered that Taliento, a teller at the bank, had cashed several forged money orders. When interviewed by FBI agents, he admitted furnished the petitioner with one of the bank 's customer signature cards which was used by Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders; Taliento then processed these money orders through the regular channels of the bank. When Taliento related this information to the grand jury, the petitioner was indicted; thenceforth, he was named as a co-conspirator with the petitioner; however, he was not …show more content…
Holhan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). In Napue, the court had held that the same result occurs when the State although not soliciting false evidence allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material exculpatory evidence required a new trial. In Giglio 's case, the Court found that neither DiPaola 's authority nor his failure to inform his superior Hoey or his associate Golden was controlling. The Court held that, regardless of whether the failure to disclose was intentional or negligent, disclosing the information remained the obligation of the prosecutor in its position as spokesman for the government; ergo, a pledge made by one attorney on the case must be attributed to the
...om. The Court found Officer Flagg took and used against him, Gerald Gault’s confession without his parents or any counsel being present and never notifying the juvenile of his right to remain silent.
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if 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 if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
Issue 1: The right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel is a fundamental right, crucial to a fair trial. Failure to make an attorney available to an indigent defendant is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
It is however important to note that there are times when the defendant can be tried for the same crime a second time by the same government without the government violating the Fifth Amendment which protects the defendant from double jeopardy. It is possible for a defendant for example to be tried by both the federal and the state government for the same crime or for other crimes that arise from events surrounding the original crime. Another scenario though very rare in occurrence is a situation whereby the jury may find the defendant guilty but the jud...
American citizens accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against them, to bring witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of legal counsel. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln decided that such constitutional...
To effectively make a claim for a new trial based on a violation of the Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process, the movant must satisfy the Brady standard: 1) the suppressed evidence is favorable to the accused; 2) the government either willfully or inadvertently suppressed the evidence; and 3) the suppressed evidence was material to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The discretion of the Court to grant a new
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
Amendment and the accused will be given witnesses prior to jury trial, this right is afforded to
The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use of evidence illegally obtain by federal law enforcement officers. Not until 1949, in the caw of Wolf v. Colorado, 38 U.S. 25, 27-28, did the U.S. Supreme Court take the first step toward applying the exclusionary rule to the states by ruling that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states: the security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment- is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in the “concept of ordered liberty” and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause.
"Rights of the Accused." : Supreme Court Cases. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. .
Two months after the nation’s highest court agreed to hear arguments in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona, John Flynn and John Frank submitted their outline of the case and legal arguments in support of their position. They continued their argument that Ernest Miranda’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the Phoenix Police Department: “The day is here to recognize the full meaning of the Sixth Amendment,” they wrote. “We invoke the basic principles (that) ‘he requires the guiding...
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.