Connick v. Thompson: 563 U.S. _____, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011) – One of the issues raised in this case was the violation of Brady v. Maryland where the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence (law.cornell.edu. n.d.). Therefore, Thompson brought a suit pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the district attorney’s office was liable for failing to properly training its employees on the requirements of Brady. Furthermore, the concern was about the prosecutor’s behavior. Therefore, the U.S Court of Appeals found in favor of assigning liability to the district attorney’s office for failing to properly train its employees (law.cornell.edu. n.d.). Mr. Thompson concerns were that the prosecutors’ lack of training amounted to a deliberate
…show more content…
Maryland. Therefore, he felt that he did not receive a fair trial because this evidence was not present because the office did not provide formal training regarding Brady. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court had to review the case and they stated that Connick was responsible for his employees not being properly trained on Brady v. Maryland were evidence is wrongfully withheld in a trial. Therefore, they sided with Mr. Thompson as well as all of the previous courts decisions and awarded Mr. Thompson for the violation of a fair trial.
Hardy v. Cross: 565 U.S. _____, 132 S. Ct. 1626; 182 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2011) – The main issue in this case was that the witness A.S. was at the first trial but unavailable for the retrial or second trial. Therefore, when this happen the state decided to go ahead and use her previous statement or testimony made in the first trial as evidence. When this happened Cross told them that this violated his right of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment because the state was unable to locate A.S. before the trial begin. Furthermore, he felt that the state did not make a good faith effort to find her in order for her to be in court for …show more content…
Ruiz: 536 U.S. 622; 122 S. Ct. 2450; 153 L. Ed. 2d 586 (2002) - In this case Ruiz’s was found carrying marijuana in her luggage by an Mter immigration agent. Unfortunately, federal prosecutors offered her a “fast track’ plea bargain, whereby she waived indictment, trail and an appeal in exchange for a reduced sentence recommendation (supreme.justia.com. n.d). Therefore, once she done this it is required by prosecutors under the Constitution to make certain impeachment information available to defendants before a trial because it entitles a defendant from waiving their rights to the information in which they did not do and that the “fast track” agreement was unlawful. Therefore, the state or prosecutor behavior was unacceptable because they withheld information in order to get a guilty verdict. Unfortunately, the appellant is not raising the concerns but the concerns are being raised by the United States Court because it is a requirement under the Constitution that a prosecutor makes sure that they make all information available to a defendant before they go to trial and this was not done. Therefore, by the prosecution not doing this she felt that her constitutional rights had been violated because she had pleaded guilty to drug charges without knowing all of her entitlements. Unfortunately, when it went before the Supreme Court they found that none of her rights were violated because she voluntarily entered into a guilty plea and that the government is not
Maryland. Therefore, he felt that he did not receive a fair trial because this evidence was not present because the office did not provide formal training regarding Brady. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court had to review the case and they stated that Connick was responsible for his employees not being properly trained on Brady v. Maryland were evidence is wrongfully withheld in a trial. Therefore, they sided with Mr. Thompson as well as all of the previous courts decisions and awarded Mr. Thompson for the violation of a fair trial.
Hardy v. Cross: 565 U.S. _____, 132 S. Ct. 1626; 182 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2011) – The main issue in this case was that the witness A.S. was at the first trial but unavailable for the retrial or second trial. Therefore, when this happen the state decided to go ahead and use her previous statement or testimony made in the first trial as evidence. When this happened Cross told them that this violated his right of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment because the state was unable to locate A.S. before the trial begin. Furthermore, he felt that the state did not make a good faith effort to find her in order for her to be in court for …show more content…
Ruiz: 536 U.S. 622; 122 S. Ct. 2450; 153 L. Ed. 2d 586 (2002) - In this case Ruiz’s was found carrying marijuana in her luggage by an Mter immigration agent. Unfortunately, federal prosecutors offered her a “fast track’ plea bargain, whereby she waived indictment, trail and an appeal in exchange for a reduced sentence recommendation (supreme.justia.com. n.d). Therefore, once she done this it is required by prosecutors under the Constitution to make certain impeachment information available to defendants before a trial because it entitles a defendant from waiving their rights to the information in which they did not do and that the “fast track” agreement was unlawful. Therefore, the state or prosecutor behavior was unacceptable because they withheld information in order to get a guilty verdict. Unfortunately, the appellant is not raising the concerns but the concerns are being raised by the United States Court because it is a requirement under the Constitution that a prosecutor makes sure that they make all information available to a defendant before they go to trial and this was not done. Therefore, by the prosecution not doing this she felt that her constitutional rights had been violated because she had pleaded guilty to drug charges without knowing all of her entitlements. Unfortunately, when it went before the Supreme Court they found that none of her rights were violated because she voluntarily entered into a guilty plea and that the government is not