Clayton V. Case Brief

The afternoon was an emotional one for Kelley's family as a New York State Police investigator read a signed statement from Michael Beard saying he killed Kelley Clayton.

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.

Name of the Justice who issued the majority opinion of the case: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

In 1963 Brady and Boblit (his companion) were prosecuted for murder and were tried separately. In his extrajudicial statement Boblit confessed to committing the murder and stated that he has acted alone. During Brady’s trial, however, the prosecution had withheld Boblit’s written statement of his confession to acting alone. Due to the lack of information Brady confessed that he had been involved in the murder but that Boblit was the one that actually committed the killing. Because of the nature of both Boblit’s and Brady’s confessions they were both found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Brady’s counsel was given all the extrajudicial statements except the one containing Boblit’s confession of committing the act of murder alone. Brady then appealed claiming that having Boblit’s confession withheld from his counsel was a direct violation of his right to due process of law. Boblit’s counsel claimed that if Brady and his attorneys had been made aware of the confession they would have been able to present it to the jury and would most likely not received such a harsh

witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” Men and women

The Steuben County man accused of killing his wife pleaded not guilty to new murder charges in court Thursday. Thomas Clayton faces three murder counts for the death of his wife Kelley in their Caton home in September.

Michael Beard, the man Clayton hire to kill Kelley, is serving a life sentence at Clinton Correctional Facility. Clayton will be transferred from the Steuben County Jail to a prison within the Department of Corrections within the coming days or

So he is set up with a new “paralegal,” undercover FBI agent “Evon Miller”. In addition, of course he cannot be allowed to bribe judges for the return of real verdicts; everyone has the right to an honest day in court. So they set up sham cases. “Jim McManis,” another undercover agent, will defend those cases, and Robbie's attorney, George Mason will “refer” those cases.

As you are aware, this office represents Gerry and Mary Goldman in this matter. Please note that our clients have informed us that you have contacted them directly without this office’s permission by serving them with your Notice of Videotaped Discovery Depositions, which you signed. As you are also aware, your direct contact with our clients is improper. Please do not contact my client directly unless you receive instruction from this office to do so.

I am writing to memorialize objections to the Presentence Investigation Report draft in the above-mentioned matter. In general, I object to the Offense Conduct, Role in the Offense, Offense Level Computation, and Offense Behavior Not Part of Relevant Conduct sections as Mr. Tulin plead not guilty and maintain his innocence. Furthermore, the statements of witnesses and characterization of the alleged facts are inconsistent with the evidence adduced at trial and/or lack support of such evidence in the discovery. Specifically, I object to the following and request the information be removed or modified:

An opening discussion between counsel and the trial judge, followed by the Crown providing clarification on an issue from a prior session, the examination in chief of Mr Brett Crawford, a voir dire regarding the relevance of evidence, and the examination in chief of

Evidence may be presented by the prosecution in a manner intended to place the defendant at an unfair disadvantage. This evidence is a violation of his or her right to due process and right to fair trial when it is discovered to be untruthful and haphazardly presented to the jury (Zalman, 2008). This information can include a misleading testimony in which a witness withholds vital information that will negatively affect the defendant. Additionally, the prosecution can allow a testimony from a witness that is misinformed or ignorant, which can affect cross-examination from the defense. Since the purpose of cross-examining the witness is to obtain information that will weaken the testimony, a misinformed witness does not provide the defense with a useful basis (Zalman, 2008). Evidence presented by the prosecution must be researched and found truthful. The 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland illustrated misconduct on behalf of the prosecution in withholding evidence from the defense during pretrial proceedings (Zalman, 2008). Brady and his companion, Boblit were prosecuted for murder (Brady, 2010). Brady confessed to the prosecutor that he was at the scene of the murder, however did not actually commit the act (Brady, 2010). The prosecution received a written confession from Boblit that agreed with Brady’s statements, however did not present this portion of the evidence during the pretrial (Brady, 2010). Consequently, the Maryland Court

Clayton is in the midst of handling one of the biggest challenges of his career, while also dealing with trying to paying off money he owes a bookie and trying to be a good father. Clayton is shown to have a moral conflict when he is directed to keep Arthur Edens quiet. Eden is the firm’s most knowledgeable and senior litigator who is handling a big case for KB&L, in representing U-North, one of the firm’s largest clients in a

It will be my task to summarize an account of events that lead to one of New York most notable criminal court cases in its history. The case revolved around the murder victim William M. Rice and the two conspirator accused of the act, Charles F. Jones and Albert T. Patrick. Jones was the long time servant and confidant to Rice as well as the eventual confessed actor in his murder. Patrick was an unpolished lawyer who gained access to Rice’s legal dealings after being hired by opposing litigation against Rice but was also accused of setting events in motion toward the eventual death of Rice. The questions of whether Jones was the actual murderer and whether it was due to Patrick’s motivated instigation is in brief below and still in

Although he could have overlooked the issue, he jeopardized his credibility, went against his own employer and fought for the affected families. He tried talking directly to the CEO of the company and stated, “If you don’t make it right on your own, I will” demonstrating Harvey’s conviction to follow his ethical morality and fight for unrepresented victims. In another instance a district attorney used false evidence to convict a man for murder, and was sentenced for a life term. When Harvey uncovered this situation he went against the district attorney who was his own mentor and sought justice for the man in prison. As a corporate lawyer Harvey did not need to involve himself in a civil-suits but as a justice-seeking man he evades all opposition and centers in keeping his ethical moral code. Corporate America has invoked the portrayal of lawyers as self-interested, money-driven individuals, but Suits deteriorates this stereotype and shows the lawyers’ conviction for the public-good. The show subtly incorporates long-established traditional perception of lawyers who defend citizens who have unjustly been handled under the law.