Prosecutorial misconduct is when a prosecutor wrongfully convicts a defendant based on information he or she may keep concealed from a judge and/or jury. Ask the average citizen, and they are totally unaware that such a thing ever happens. The public is often persuaded to believe that all prosecutors are honorable people who are committed to ethics, justice, and upholding the law. But prosecutorial misconduct and misdeeds happen, and they occur more frequently than anyone would imagine. Judge Konzinski
Title: Brady v. Maryland Facts: Both Charles Boblit and John Brady were found guilty of first-degree murder and in turns sentenced to the death penalty in the sentencing phase in the state court of Anne Arundel County. Brady volunteered that he was involved in the robbery but did not involve himself in the homicide, he stated Boblit did act of killing. But since the prosecution kept the admittance Brady learned after sentencing that Boblit had confessed to the murder. On appeal, the Maryland Court
Citation: Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) Facts: Gigilio was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for passing forged money orders at a local bank. Mr. Robert Taliento is the local bank teller, alleged co-conspirator, and the only witness linking the appellant to the crime. It was Taliento who supplied Giglio with the customer’s bank signature card and it was Taliento who cashed the forged money orders. During the trial defense counsel cross-examined Taliento in regards to
United States Supreme Court cases are argued and decided on Constitutional grounds. All arguments and decisions are based on interpretations of the original Constitution and, more often, on Constitutional amendments. GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT In June 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering in Bay Harbor. He was tried in a Florida Circuit Court in August 1961. Gideon stated in Court that he was unable to afford a lawyer and asked the Judge to appoint one for him. The Judge
given to the defense and the evidence was significant, he was given a new trial (United states v., 1976). What separates this case from the others is the fact that the evidence suppressed was witness testimony and the witness’ background and prior statements. The testimony of “Beanie” in this case was important, as it had “significant inconsistencies and affirmatively self-incriminating assertions (Kyles v. whitley, 1995)”. Because this information and prior testimony relevant to the case weren’t
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
Zone Act” which makes it illegal to have any type of firearm 1,000 feet in any school zone. In 1993 the “Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act” was initiated. The Act makes you have a five day waiting period and requires a criminal background check when you purchase a handgun, as much as the advocates liked this act in 1997 the act was voted unconstitutional after the supreme court case “Printz V. United States”. The Gun Control advocates still wanted some type of protection so in 1999 the Senate passed
their own legislation regarding the right of the indigent accused to have counsel appointed to them in the state trials, or does the Fourteenth Amendment prevent this? The Supreme Court was faced with answering these questions in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. In June of 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon, a fifty year old petty thief, drifter, and gambler who had spent much of his life in and out of jail was arrested in Panama City Florida. He was charged with breaking into a poolroom one night in an
members only. But the amendment also states that it is the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. But is “the people” referring to only the militia or to all citizens in general? In 1990 that question was answered in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (Cramer 171). This case was about a man who had committed a crime while in Mexico. The man argued that his constitutional rights had been violated. But the court ruled that since he was outside the United States when the crime was committed
freedom, which enabled them and their actions to be remembered forever (Brown). Rose O’Neal Greenhow was born in Port Tobbaco, Maryland in 1817, and existed to be a prominent leading woman figure during the American Civil War. At a very young age, she moved to Washington, D.C. at her Aunt’s boardinghouse along with her sister, leaving behind her family’s farm in Maryland (Faust). There she became a social butterfly, who constantly kept busy by surrounding herself with people, especially those in
The Articles of Confederation 1776 brought a declaration of and a war for independence to Britain’s North American colonies. While they had all acted in concert to reach this decision, their memories of colonial life under the centralized British monarchy had lasting effect upon their views of what the federal government of their new republic would have the power to do. In the years following the Declaration of Independence, Congress came up with the Articles of Confederation
The central question of federalism is “Who should do what?” National government supporters believe only a strong central government is capable of ensuring the rights and liberties of its citizens. States’ rights advocates argue for limiting the implied powers of the national government. Federalism was a compromise for the conflict of states’ rights versus central authority. Federalism divides power between the national and the lower level governments with each having distinct powers that the other
The author of Anatomy of Injustice Raymond Bonner, is a 72 year old investigative reporter for the New York Times. He graduated from McMurray College and earned himself a degree from Stanford University Law School. After being honourably discharged from the U.S Marine Corps, he worked as an attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group. Followed by his role as director of consumer fraud white collar crime unit of the San Francisco District Attorney's office ('Lyons Award Goes to American Journalist'