Supreme Court Cases: Brady V. Maryland

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

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

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.

While all of the topics that we have covered throughout this course have been troubling, the topic of prosecutorial misconduct is to me one of the most distressing; the mere thought of the possibility of misconduct by prosecutors gives me the chills, and the numerous examples featured within the assigned chapter readings, in addition to the online articles, only further my skepticism in the legal system and those individuals holding official positions. There appears to be a lot of similarities between prosecutorial misconduct and the topics that we discussed as possible reasons for faulty forensic science, such as a common trust bias in police officials, lack of universal standards, and other cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

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.

Appellant Brady was found guilty of first degree murder by the Maryland Court system. During his trial hearing Brady admitted to participating in the organization and forethought of the crime with a partner, although plead that he himself did not commit the crime. After disclosing his involvement, Brady’s lawyer admitted to his guilt but asked for a lesser penalty since Brady didn’t commit the murder. Before trial Brady’s council asked for all relevant information to the trial and were given most, but not all of it. The withholding of evidence was a violation of due process laws in which a new trial was requested. A new trial was granted but only for sentencing and not a retrial of fact.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

1. In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland was a landmark decision deciding that the State of Maryland at the time cannot hinder federal banks by forcing a tax on banks not chartered by Maryland. At the time of 1810, banks were collapsing due to an economic downfall of the war of 1812. The banks that survived that were licensed by the States lacked a lot of recognition and trust to move forward after the war to make an economic push. Then in 1816, Congress granted a charter to the Second Bank of the United States and also provided one-fifth of the nation’s capital of $35 million.

This can be considered one of the most important Supreme Court case in the history of the United States. This was the first case to deal with the principle of judicial review. When John Adams term was ending he rapidly began to appoint people to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia under the organic act, which was an excuse to put federalists congress. What was an impulsive presidential decision became one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in American history. When Jefferson entered office he told his senator of state James Madison to ignore the commissions because they were 'invalid' since they were not delivered before John Adams left office. William Marbury was one of the intended receivers

The name of the case is District of Columbia et al. v. Heller.The plaintiff Dick Heller; District of Columbia is defendant . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided this case in 2008. Heller, D.C. special policeman, applied to a record certification from the city of Washington, D.C. for a handgun, which he wanted to hold it at home. A statute of Washington, D.C. banned having a gun within doors with no license, and it also demanded any legitimate handgun conserved at home to be extended inactive via take of a trigger-lock. The defendant, District of Columbia,disclaimed claim of Heller for a record certification established on its law. Dick Heller then has filed a suit in a court of Federal district for the District of Columbia, reasoning that the city’s trial on the

Aguilar v. Texas established the “two-pronged test” for determining whether a confidential informant’s tip is enough to establish probable cause for a magistrate to issue a search warrant (Aguilar v. Texas, 1964). The test consisted of the reliability of the informant and the basis of knowledge that he or she has of the criminal activity. While these two elements are important, they should not be the sole basis that a magistrate uses to prove probable cause exists. Instead, these elements should be used to as guides when considering the totality of the circumstances of the situation. Illinois v. Gates vacated the two-pronged tests and installed the traditional “totality of the circumstances” approach.

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

The Brady Doctrine governs all criminal trials which are a state, and federal in deterring prosecutorial misconduct (Hall, 2015). I strongly agree with the importance of this doctrine. It allows constitutional laws to uphold the disclosure of information without violating one’s due process right. This piece of philosophical evidence grants reasonable probability to be permissible in a court of law which might exonerate a defendant. The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland in 1963 in favor of a defendant (Hall, 2015). The doctrine required that prosecutors must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case in order to prove their innocence.

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.