Case Study: Brady V. Maryland

Title: Brady v. Maryland
Facts: In this case petitioner Brady was convicted by a Maryland court for murder in the first degree. During his trial, he admitted his complicity in the actual planning as well as the commission of the crime. Unfortunately, he denied having any personally committed the killing but was in fact perpetrated by his companion. His defense counsel admitted that his client was guilty at the trial, but explained to the jury that they should find him guilty but they should not impose the death penalty because of his lesser culpability. Prior to the trial, Brady’s attorney ask for access to all of the accomplice’s statements to the police which, most of them were provided to him with the exception of one. Unfortunately, that statement showed that the accomplice had admitted to committing the murder.
Issues: One of the issues in the case was that the prosecution had withheld evidence that could have helped or either hurt the defendant’s argument in the case but felt that they didn’t have to give it to them. The next issue was when the “Court of Appeals” restricted the petitioner’s new trial to question the punishment of the petitioner instead of offering them a new trial because it may have …show more content…
Unlike, Giglio the prosecution offered Taliento immunity in exchange for his testimony against Giglio. When the case went to trail Taliento said that the prosecution never offered any leniency for his testimony and another prosecutor handling the trial never corrected Taliento’s testimony. Furthermore, Giglio was than convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for the crime. Once, in prison Giglio learned of Taliento’s immunity after he had filed an appeal. After his appeal was filed the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine if in fact the evidence in the case should have been turned over as a matter of due process under the case of Brady v.