Brady V. Maryland Case Study

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

I. The Supreme Court of the United States case, Brady v. Maryland, established the Brady Rule, which requires the government to disclose to the defendants in criminal trials material evidence that is favorable to the defendants in certain circumstances. Is the Brady Rule applicable in military disability separation hearings?

"Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused-- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant 's guilt, that would reduce a defendant 's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness” (Cornell University Law School, 2015).

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),” the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request 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” (Judge, 2015). Other cases that show where officers of the courts credibility is put into question can be found in United States v. Bagley where “also clarified that impeachment evidence must be disclosed to the defense” (Judge, 2015), this had to do with police informants who the defense could have impeached their testimony, and in the case of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), “imposed upon the prosecutor an affirmative "duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government 's behalf, including the police," and a resulting duty to disclose that evidence to the defense” (Judge, 2015). The above mentioned cases all deal in some form with a person’s right to be able to have a fair trial when they are charged with a crime, and shows examples where the prosecution is required to disclose all evidence even when it is in favor of a defendant.

The same kind of good evil scenario between the defense attorney and prosecutor’s office is also evident in the television show Law & Order. Although that show does not often portray one side as only good or only bad, there have been times when it has created defense attorney characters who have taken advantage of the law to force the system to completely exonerate their clients, which makes them appear to be evil people who are “cheating” justice. Reality and Fiction: the True View 3 The reality of attorneys on opposing sides of a case is that they are seldom easily identified as good or evil persons and just because they are working for the defense or the prosecution does not indicate the type of person they are (Steinberg). Both are expected to act legally and both have pressures on them that affect their work and who they are. Simply the side they represent does not alone affect the kind of person they are. As to how they try their cases, attorney ethical codes require attorneys to “zealously” pursue their case for the benefit of their client to the extent the law allows (ABA). This means that if a defense attorney sees an opportunity for his client to be set free then he or she must use it because that is their job. It is the job of the prosecutor to assure the defense does not have those opportunities. Again, this does not reflect on the quality of their character. The same thing can also

Like police officials, the public views prosecutors as the heroes in criminal cases because they are the ones who are acting for the good of the people, helping to fight crime, and ensuring the safety of the public. Or so we are lead to believe. However, many cases like the Nicarico case or the Rivera case show that the prosecutors are doing the opposite, and are instead hurting innocent people. In the Nacarico case, one instances of misconduct was when the prosecutor collaborated with their lieutenant, stating that he had been aware of the statement made by Cruz and was listed by the prosecution as a witness. However, later it came to light that the lieutenant was not in fact made aware of the “statement.” Even though there had been no written record of such a statement, simply because the right people claimed it occurred, the common trust bias in prosecutors and police officials cause the state of Illinois to pursue Cruz for over twelve

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit admitting that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had confirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment. The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence couldn’t have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals ' ruling was confirmed. A defendant 's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the various state and federal cases that interpret its obligation that the prosecution discloses material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.

This violation being in the form of a videotape, which could have completely changed the outcome of the case. On this videotape there was a full confession from Ricky Simmons. Barney Ward knew all about this videotape (as it was shared with him along with all other information) yet he chose not to bring this evidence to the table and share it with the jury. Judge Jones ruled that the tape was not a Brady violation. “The tape was not really hidden; it was handed over after the trial, sort of a delayed submission (Grisham pg. 258)”.This one piece of evidence alone would have been enough to change the opinions of the jury and change the outcome of the trail. However because Barney Ward did NOT show this video, this is a clear violation of Mr. Williamson’s 6th Amendment, which guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions there must be an “effective” assistance of counsel (Cole and Smith pg. 84). In my opinion at no point in this trial was Ron Williamson’s attorney an “effective assistance of counsel”.

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

Even after a defendant has been convicted, prosecutors have an ethical, sometimes legal, duty to preserve a copy of discovery material as well as physical evidence. The prosecutor has an ethical duty to make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of their right to have an attorney present in court. They also have an ethical, legal and constitutional duty to disclose most of the evidence they possess to the defendant once the defendant has been charged with a crime. However, the individual rights of the defendant must be upheld, even if this means that the prosecutor does not obtain a conviction.

However, in many cases, the waiver is provided through questions that aim to discover whether the suspect understands the Miranda rights and their possible use. The only requirements in this regard claim that the waiver must be voluntary, intelligent, and knowing. In the present case, Ernesto Miranda suffered from extreme mental problems and had inadequate education. Therefore, it was very possible that the man did not fully understand the situation, let alone his legal rights for protection.

To begin with, the job a prosecutor has is to gather the facts of the case, along with interviewing material witnesses, and study the evidence that was collected. Next, there may be two attorneys who work the case and both should make the case hold up in court. Finally, an example of a case “where the prosecutor was unethical was when Michael B. Nifong charged Duke university lacrosse team in 2007 with sexual assault, and other crimes, although the evidence collected did not prove that they were guilty.” (pg.)

The unique ethical rules for a prosecutor are the conflict of interest. For the respect of the prosecutor official duties, he/or she should avoid conflict of interest. In which the prosecutor should not proceed in the representation of a defendant in a criminal jurisdiction in which he/or she is employed as a prosecutor for an example when a prosecutor is employed part-time it may confront a host of ethical issues ( Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. 2014). While in a private practice a prosecutor should not participate in a non-governmental employment. Disclosing exculpatory evidence is another unique ethical rule for a prosecutor. Typically a prosecutor will hand over less information as possible to the courts to prove the defendant's innocence.

There are a number of ways for a prosecutor to commit misconduct. He could make inappropriate comments to jurors, or coax witnesses into giving false or misleading testimony. But one of the most pervasive misdeeds is the Brady violation, or the failure to turn over favorable evidence to the defendant.