Brady Vs. Maryland Case

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

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the “Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;

The United States Court of Appeals first determined that Brady doctrine did not apply because the Maddox defense team had not requested the information be disclosed. It was only after unsuccessfully pursuing his direct appeal did he bring up this post-conviction habeas corpus petition. In the United States v. Agurs the Court stated that such a failure to

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

The court's decision was that it was wrong of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny the inmate's right to appeal the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the murderer was most likely the husband and not Paul Gregory House (“House v. Bell”). The case decision would cause the denial of habeas corpus to be removed and the case would be instated with the help of the new evidence.

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that withholding evidence violated the process where the evidence is crucial either to guilt or to punishment. The court also determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant, but was material to the level of punishment he would be given.

Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

In 1987 in Texas, a prosecutor was faced with this dilemma. Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his wife based on circumstantial evidence. Morton’s defense attorney was never told about, or given access to, the police report in which Morton’s three year old son had told police that his daddy had not killed his mommy. After serving 25 years for murdering his wife, Morton was exonerated after attorneys were finally given access to the police report and DNA testing of a bloody bandana found at the scene of the murder matched a man who was serving a sentence for the murder of another woman.

The first step on the road to redemption for the Steelers and hopefully soon the entire NFL, is to give back to the players. The Steelers, by making their contributions to the players public, can jumpstart a chain reaction with other teams in the league and they can follow suit to overall make the brutal game of football a safer endeavor. These retired players were once adored by fans and now serve as living legends and are still viewed in an incredibly high stature, so if the Steelers organization tries to push this aside and not give credit and compensation where it is due, it will make the Steelers look cheap and hard-hearted. In order to settle the case the

5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.