The Case Of Brady V. Maryland

Police officers are faced each day with a variety of situation in which they must deal; therefore we should ask ourselves the following questions: Should police officers enforce the law equally in all situations? In what situations should police officers be allowed to not enforce the law? What types of situations would they be required to fully enforce the law? Why does police discretion exist? What are its strengths and weaknesses? And what is the relationship between police discretion and police ethics?

". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority.

Two Utah sisters, Maria and Jan Brady posted a message on Facebook in support of anti-globalization and anti-genetically organism (GMO) activists against McDonalds restaurants, who had incited riots in Europe. The sister’s message, sent to over 500 “friends”, asking them to join the sisters in two days at 10 p.m. at a McDonalds near the sister’s apartment for a “night of riot, pillage, and fun”. A secondary message was sent out asking the participants to bring items that could be used as weapons or cause property damage.

The prosecutor having to decide what evidence is material leaves the most room for an ethical violation to occur. While it can be hard to image that a prosecutor that a prosecutor would willingly withhold evidence that points to a defendant's innocence it does happen and arguably in the cases that resulted in exonerations it was not done intentionally. One reason for this is the fact that the prosecutor in deciding what is material under Brady and has to be disclosed has to see into the future and while doing that think like both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. “On one hand, the prosecutor is the zealous advocate for the State, while on the other the prosecutor must pretend to have the mind of a defense lawyer in order to determine whether any evidence in his possession falls within the parameters of what is considered Brady material.”10 This dichotomy leaves so much room for a violation almost purely by accident. As the Justice Project points out, prosecutors may inadvertently suppress evidence due to unfamiliarity with the defense’s case and inability to forecast what evidence may prove material in the context of the defense strategy.11 Which is true, because the prosecutor would be use to looking at the facts and consider what is exculpatory given their theory of the case and how to rebut it. But not all attorney's look at all the information the same and are not trained the same, so something a defense attorney thinks is important, might not appear to be important to a prosecutor. Which the Justice Project also points out how it creates competing roles for the prosecutor, who must both try the defendant and anticipate what evidence

The court in Jackson v Davis stated that just because evidence is suppressed in a prior criminal proceeding, that “does not prevent this Court from considering such evidence in connection with its analysis of Plaintiff's §1983 claims.” 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95600, 64 (W.D. Pa. July 14, 2014). This is primarily true because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply in § 1983 claims. See Padilla v. Miller, 143 F. Supp. 2d 479, 493-94 (M.D. Pa. 2001) (finding consistency between the Second and Third Circuits in finding that “the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not available to a § 1983 claimant” based on the decisions in Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. Pa. 2000) and Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. N.Y.

The case that I received was a case that has to do with the disclosure of information by the prosecutor in court. A federal agent had caught a man selling drugs during an undercover operation. The prosecutor had instructed the agent not to mention information about an informant during the preliminary hearing.(Garland,2012)The question with this is whether or not this act was unconstitutional. This is unconstitutional because all information should be included and none disclosed for the preliminary hearing or any trial.

In the case, Giglio v United States in 1972, it was determined the prosecution has a legal requirement to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense, this rule established the application to exculpatory evidence the prosecutor may be unaware of (McDonald & Means, 2016). In the Giglio case, the prosecution provided a key witness, an accomplice to the crime, who testified he had not been made any promises of immunity for his testimony. Following Giglio’s conviction, the defense discovered there was an offer made to the accomplice by another prosecuting attorney. The case was appealed, overturned, moreover, a new trial was allowed. The credibility of the witness was lost in the previous trial, his statements under oath were that he had

Louis Police Department also mirrors the ethics set forth in the text in that it demands that officers have a high level of integrity (Values: Our Mission Statement and Code of Ethics, 2012). Public trust is an important cornerstone of establishing ethics within the criminal justice system. This is because in the criminal justice system, officials are charged with maintaining the civil rights of individuals and also ensuring that their rights are upheld by the system. Therefore, any officer should practice integrity, so that they are not vulnerable to corruption nor are they easily swayed to make a decision in favor of one party or another. Essentially, the police officers should hold themselves to a higher moral standard and ensure that the actions that they are conducting are actions that are moral and in the pursuit of justice.

Based upon my research, I will agree with the Brady Doctrine, and is a very important ruling to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Whether it is the officer or the prosecutor, the truth and facts of the case should be paramount for all parties involved and be presented, regardless is it damages the case ("Brady Vs. Maryland: Do You Know Your Obligations"). If there is any disclosure of facts that could keep an innocent person from going to prison, therefore, it needs to be brought to light. It would be very unfair to any person’s that is being charged, to have evidence proving their innocence’s withheld from the courts. No prosecutor are officer should ever lie are withhold information from a case even if they were wrong,

In the case Kastigar v. United States, the belief was that Charles Joseph Kastigar would use the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. The issued an order granting immunity but Kastigar and Stewart refused to testify (Kastigar v. United States - Case Background, 2009). The claim was that “only transactional immunity, which was not granted, would

A criminal defendant has a constitutional privilege against self incrimination. To permit the prosecution to make negative implications about a refusal to testify would penalize a defendant for exercising a constitutional right. This cannot be permitted. Reversed” (“Griffin v. California” Casebriefs.com).

In regards to this weeks discussion forum, I can understand why there may be a situation in which a prosecutor may destroy evidence of a defendant's guilt, but I do not feel it is acceptable in any situation that may occur. I would presume there have been cases; such as self defense, where the defendant may be in trial for manslaughter even though they were legitimately defending themselves. Given the nature of the situation, coupled with certain emotional feelings or biases the prosecutor may have towards the defendant, I could see where this type of action may occur. The moral lapse of judgment, coupled with the knowledge that prosecutors have immunity from civil liability from procedural functions may as well impact their decision making

It is true that police officers have absolute control over their own integrity and professionalism; however, a portion of the responsibility lies with the police administration. The “six pillars” of character are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, justice/fairness, caring, and civic virtues/citizenship, which is the type of character a police officer should ultimately possess to properly perform the honorable profession of law enforcement. As my research has revealed, that is not always the case. Understanding the causes of police misconduct is critical to prevent distrust, fear, and cynicism among citizens and their views of police officers.

This is seen in murder cases and mainly sexual assault cases. Beyond reasonable doubt the jury must indicate whether the victim is either guilty or not. A complete defense to murder is one or more of the elements where the police fail to prove. If you can prevent the police in proving one of the elements of murder, you must be acquitted of murder offence (not

When it comes to ethics this is a major part of any law enforcement job when interacting with citizens. Ethics is the moral principles that govern a person’s or groups behavior. In order to put ethics in a reality perspective, it is when a person is faced with a decision. When picking a decision, they can choose the right way of doing things based on how they were trained and their past experiences or go against their training and life experience. When doing something in an unethical way the after effect will not always sit right with that person because of their poor judgment especially with having a career in law enforcement. When that officer must explain their reason why they made that decision, sometimes it is hard for them to explain why they did it. Once a person makes an ethical decision they can later express how and why they made that decision. They can go on to say, “I made my decision based on my training and past experiences that I had in my careers. To the best on my knowledge, I solved the issue how the department has it outline in the Police Manual. By following my training this is how I came to my decision and I acted on it.” With that officer, would not be in as much trouble because they used an ethical decision to solve a problem. If that same officer solved an issue using an unethical decision they would not be able to articulate the reason behind their decision making which could land them out of a job or even in jail. So, when it