Solved by verified expert:Instructions: Since 1963, a series of United States Supreme Court case decisions have clarified that in criminal cases, prosecutors must disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the defendant. This includes information that may be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses, including law enforcement officers. These decisions mean that police officers who have documented histories of lying in official matters are liabilities to their agencies, and these histories may render them unable to testify credibly. With this in mind, you are the Chief of Police of a municipality. Your Deputy Chief of Police advises you that one of your officers was investigated for inappropriate use of one of the computers in the patrol division. As a result of this internal investigation, it was determined that the officer used this computer to search pornographic web sites. When confronted with this allegation, the officer denied any knowledge of this incident. Upon further investigation, the computer crimes analyst determined that the officer’s logon password was used to enter the unauthorized web sites. The officer then admitted to his wrongdoing and stated it would never happen again. This officer has been with your organization for 15 years, and the only other disciplinary action taken against him was for being involved in an at fault traffic accident 10 years ago. As the Chief of Police, you must decide how you will handle this situation? Write a professional memorandum outlining and explaining how you will handle this situation. What recommendations would you make? Use the references listed below to assist and support you in your decision. You must have at least 2.5 pages and should attach these new pages to Part 1, for a total of 5 pages. Therefore, in Module/Week 7 you will submit the entire Disciplinary Assignment with a title page, and a reference page citing the cases you used, and any outside 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) Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995) United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert answer:Liberty University Police Officer Liability Memo
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Supreme Court Decisions
Maria Susana Donahue
Liberty University
Supreme Court Decisions
Date: 9th May, 2019
Subject: Summary of Main Issues involved in the U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
The Brady v. Maryland case brief entails two parties, Brady and Boblit who were
suspected of murder. Before the conclusion of the case, Brady’s law counsel requested to review
Boblit’s statements in which he admitted that he had committed murder. On the other hand,
Brady confessed that he had taken part in the crime but did not play any role in the killings. In
the U.S., first degree murder is punishable by death. However, the jury and other parties involved
in the determination of the case must conduct comprehensive investigation to make sure that they
do not subject an innocent person to a lengthy jail term. In the Maryland Court, Brady and Boblit
who were the petitioner and companion respectively were convicted of first-degree murder
which was punishable by death. The petitioner pleaded with the court to suppress his punishment
as he claimed that though he participated in the crime, his companion did the actual killing.
According to the rule of law concerning this case, the Due Process Clause requires the
prosecution to present all evidence regarding the defendant’s guilt, innocence or sentencing
before the court. The primary issue is whether the prosecution must turn over evidence even if it
may be favorable to the defense. In such a scenario, the court of law allows the prosecution to
present that evidence under the Due Process Clause. The Brady v. Boblit case has a lot of
significance in the current matters related to severe cases presented in the court of law. The
regulation requires the prosecution to reveal all information, and evidence pertaining the defense
upon request.
Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972)
Giglio v. United States is a Supreme Court case in the U.S. in which the prosecutor failed
on his part by not informing the jury that a certain promise was made to the witness not to be
prosecuted in exchange for the testimony. In this case, based on court procedures, the prosecutor
violated due process thus forcing the court to make a new trial. Giglio was convicted of fraud by
allowing the processing of forged money. Due to the severity of the case, there was a need to
involve a witness to testify in the court of law for the jury to make their ruling accordingly.
However, the fact that the prosecution failed to disclose a promise made to the key witness
changed the nature of the whole case. The prosecution had promised a key witness immunity
from prosecution in exchange for detailed testimony against Giglio.
Nevertheless, the court confirmed that the error on the part of the prosecution could not
affect the verdict as investigation demonstrated that Giglio had been involved in money forgery.
The main issue of concern for this case is whether the prosecution’s failure to disclose a promise
of immunity made to key witness calls for new trial. According to the jury, there is no warrant
for a new trial if there is sufficient evidence to prove that a suspect is guilty. The promise to the
key witnesses is part of the evidence to be presented in the court. The court can rely on one
portion of the evidence without necessarily depending on the witnesses. However, if a confession
by a witness is the only evidence that a court has, then there is a requirement for a new trial if the
prosecution failed to reveal a promise of immunity on key witness.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)
In the United States v. Agurs case, Agurs (the defendant) was convicted of second-degree
murder because he stabbed James Sewell to death. According to information presented to the
court, the defendant and the victim reported to a hotel as man and wife, but few minutes later, a
fight ensued inside the hotel. The victim had two knives, and the defendant was struggling to
possess one of the weapons before intervention by the police. The law enforcement officers
found the victim with several wounds while the defendant had no wounds. The defendant’s
lawyers argued that he was just defending himself, but he was still convicted for second-degree
murder. However, after a period of approximately three months, the defendant’s lawyers filed a
motion for new trial after finding out that the victim had criminal record.
In this case, they argued that basing on the prior records of criminality, then he could
have initiated violence. The main fact of this case is that the prosecutor had failed to reveal
information regarding the victim’s extensive criminal record. Even though the prosecutor failed
to tender evidence about criminal history of the victim, the jury maintained their stand on the
case since they argued that the defense counsel did not request for the records. In this case, the
information presented to the judges as a firsthand appraisal was entirely reasonable to determine
the case. According to the constitution, a prosecutor’s failure to disclose some information does
not violate his or her constitutional duty unless the omission is exclusively substantial in denying
a defendant’s right to receive a fair trial.

Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP