Assignment:
Witness Credibility and Prosecutor Obligation
The aspect of the withholding of evidence by the prosecutor has proved to be a crucial factor in determining a fair serving of justice. Evidence that puts to question the credibility of a witness such as a law enforcer needs to be revealed by the prosecutor in an effort of seeking justice. The Memorandum herein puts forth a demonstration of three different cases that show the need for the prosecutor to be mandated to reveal evidence that affects the credibility of a witness and especially a government witness such as a law enforcement officer.
In the case of Brady vs. Maryland, the petitioner filed for a rehearing of a case whereby the petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder during a robbery. The petitioner and his accomplice underwent trials in separate courts as separate cases. The petitioner in the current case of Brady vs. Maryland claimed that the other accomplice had actually committed the crime.
The prosecutor of the case withheld crucial evidence of the confession of the other accused that he had committed the crime. It was on such basis that the petitioner of Brady vs. Maryland requested for a re-hearing of the case which was later approved on the basis of the need to re-visit the punishment while rather not the question of guilt. The case of Brady vs. Maryland is attached to the memorandum.
Discussion 1
Due to the fact that the prosecutor withheld such crucial evidence, the petitioner was to serve the same punishment as the real committee of the crime. One could describe the need for the revelation of evidence by the prosecutor that may prove to be crucial in changing a large part of the case. In the particular case, the revelation of the confession by the real perpetrator would have changed the ruling of the punishment given to the petitioner.
In the case of Giglio vs. the United States, Giglio a worker at a bank serving as the accused was found guilty of money forgery and sentenced to five years in prison. He later filed a petition requesting for a rehearing of the case when new evidence had risen that his labeled coconspirator and main witness to the case, Mr. Taliento had been promised immunity from prosecution by an assistant United States attorney, Mr. DiPaulo. Such was the basis of the petition but a ruling was made to deny the second hearing but later on, a ruling was made in another court favoring a second hearing.
The basis of the ruling for the second hearing being that the witness, Mr. Taliento who was also a co-conspirator of the case's credibility was in doubt. The reason for doubting the credibility is based on the fact that it was discovered that Taliento had been promised immunity if he testified against his fellow conspirator Mr. Giglio. The case of Giglio vs.the United States is attached to the memorandum.
Discussion 2
The credibility of a government witness thus proves to be a fundamental issue in the court of law such that a case is viable for a rehearing if the credibility of the witness is in doubt. Prosecutors are thus entitled to disclosing information that may damage the credibility of the witness such as any promise of immunity that may affect the credibility or the validity of the testimony provided by the witness.
In the case of the United States vs. Agurs, the defendant Agurs was found guilty of second-degree murder where she had stabbed her lover who later succumbed to his injuries. The defendant then later moved for a rehearing of the case after finding out new evidence that the victim had a past or history of violence.
The issue is that the prosecutor did not disclose such information that is deemed to be crucial in augmenting the defendant's defense. At the same time, in the particular case, the prosecutor's side argued that the defendant had not requested for the revelation of such evidence. The case of the United States vs. Agurs is attached to the memorandum. The question of the mandate or the responsibility of the prosecutor to reveal such evidence proves to be a crucial factor in the actual determination of cases.
Discussion 3
Due to the ability of such evidence to be crucial in determining a case, it is reasonable for the prosecutor to be handed the responsibility of providing certain pieces of information such as the history of a witness or victim in a case. As such, the credibility of a witness needs to be determined before any evidence or testimonies are received from the witness, while at the same time, in the case of the credibility of law enforcement officers, evidence regarding the history of an officer witness proves to be crucial for the sake of serving justice and fairness.
The credibility of a witness needs to be determined before any evidence or testimonies are received from the witness. In the case of law enforcement officers, it is crucial that the credibility of an officer is determined before any evidence is received from the officer while the prosecutor'sability to withhold any evidence proves to be a crucial factor in the denial of justice.
Attachment:- Reference.rar