Re: Prosecutorial Disclosure of Evidence to Defense Counsel
Beginning in the 1960s, the Supreme Court heard a number of cases that transformed the world of criminal procedure. The common theme running through all of these cases is that the Court began to focus on balancing the defendant’s rights against that of the government in a criminal proceeding. One of the areas that were specifically addressed was whether the Constitution required the Prosecutor to disclose evidence that tends to be advantageous to the defense. While the Prosecutor and the defense are adversaries in a criminal court of law, the Supreme Court maintains that under some circumstances, the Prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence. There are three key Supreme Court cases that attempt to weigh the interests of the government in prosecuting the defendant and the defendant’s interest in receiving a fair trial that is fitting with notions of due process. The following memorandum will provide a brief analysis of these three cases that outline the government’s duties of disclosure in complement with the Due Process Clause.
Brady v. Maryland
In Brady v. Maryland, a Maryland Court found defendant Brady and a companion guilty of murder, and both defendants were subsequently sentenced to death. Brady admitted to involvement in the murder murder, including its preparation, but stated that his companion was the person who actually performed the killing. Brady’s defense admitted Brady’s guilt, but argued that the jury should not sentence him to death penalty because he was not the actual murderer. Prior to the trial, Brady’s defense had requested that the prosecution permit him to examine the companion’s extrajudicial statements. In one of these statements, the companion confessed that he had done the actual killing. The prosecution, however, refused these requests. Brady’s defense did not become aware of this suppression until after Brady had been sentenced to death. Brady’s defense then filed a petition with the trial court for post conviction relief, and this petition was denied. On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals declared that the prosecution’s withholding of evidence was wrongful and that this withholding constituted a denial of Brady’s due process rights.
The Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of whether not disclosing the companion’s confession to the defense violated Brady’s due process rights. The Court held that because the companion’s confession was “material either to guilt or punishment” the Prosecutor was required to disclose the statement to the defense (Brady v. Maryland, 1963, p. 87).
United States v. Agurs
In United States v. Agurs, a defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder. The defendant and the victim were both sharing a hotel room. After a hotel employee heard screams coming from the room and ran upstairs to the room, the employee found the defendant and the victim struggling for a knife. The victim had several knife wounds and ultimately died from these wounds. The defendant, however, did not exhibit any knife wounds. At trial, the defense argued that the murder was committed in self-defense. Following the defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder, the defense learned that the prosecution failed to reveal the previous criminal record belonging to the victim. The defense challenged that the Prosecutor was under a duty to reveal such information. Taking into account the suppressed criminal record of the victim, the defense filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was denied in the District Court but was upheld in the Court of Appeals, on the grounds that the criminal record of he victim was material evidence and the jury may have reached a different verdict regarding the defendant’s guilt if the prosecution had been required to disclose this evidence.
The Court reached a different conclusion than the Brady. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s failure to disclose the victim’s past record was not a denial of the defendant’s due process rights. Citing Brady, the Court expounded that the three types of circumstances that require the prosecution to disclose were not present in the Agurs case. More importantly, the defendant cabined the breadth of Brady in holding that the prosecution’s duty to disclose only extended to evidence that leads to some reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, and does not require the prosecution to disclose any and all evidence that could possibly impact a jury verdict (United States v. Agurs, 1976).
Giglio v. United States
In contrast to the previous two cases, Giglio v. United States case does not involve the prosecution’s failure to disclose evidence to the defense. The Gilgio case concerned the prosecution’s duty to tell the jury material evidence regarding witnesses who testified before the tribunal. In Giglio, the Prosecutor entered into a deal with a witness who agreed to testify for the prosecution and against the defendant at trial. In return for the witness’s testimony against the defendant, the Prosecution assured the witness that it would not press any criminal charges against the witness. The Prosecutor never informed the jury about this deal. The jury found the defendant guilty and the defendant was sentenced to prison. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Prosecutor’s failure to disclose such evidence to the jury violated the defendant’s right to due process.
In Brady, the Court had previously held that a Prosecutor’s failure to disclose material evidence denies a defendant due process and requires a new trial. In light of the principles announced in Brady, the Court in Giglio held that the Prosecutor’s failure to inform the jury about the deal between witness and the government was material evidence and should have been disclosed. The Prosecution’s failure to inform the jury of such material evidence was a denial of Due Process and the Court ordered a new trial (Giglio v. United States, 1972).
What three cases show is that although due process does not require the Prosecution to disclose any evidence that could benefit the defendant’s case, the Prosecutor is under a duty to disclose evidence that is material to a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Imposing this duty of fundamental fairness is wholly consistent with the notions of fairness and justice. Because the government stands in a far more powerful position than the defense, due process requires that the government adhere to certain rules and standards to ensure the defendant receives an impartial trial.
References
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
