Professional Memorandum on Main Issues in US Supreme Court Cases

Disciplinary Assignment: The Criminal Justice System In Its Environment
Name
Liberty University
CJUS 520
Instructor Name
Date
Memorandum-Part 1
TO: Recipient Name
FROM: Your Name
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Main Issues: Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963)
In this hearing within the Maryland Court, the judges made their ruling based on the presented facts material to the case and the United States’ constitution. However, the court questioned the admissibility of the tabled evidence as the petitioner and their crime partner, were facing first-degree killing charges and accorded a capital punishment. At this particular case, the petitioner accepted to having committed the offense, indicating that his crime partner was the one that committed the real killing. Based on this account to the judges and the complainant’sss attorney accepted that the complainant was liable to held guilty for the offence relating the first-degree murder and requested only that the judges make the ruling that is devoid of capital punishment. During the particular hearing, the claimant’s jury lobbied the prosecutor to let him to evaluate the mate’s extrajudicial sentiments. A great deal of these were demonstrated to him, but the prosecution withheld the one in which the mate accepted to have committed the actual murder and was not brought to the petitioner’s knowledge until after his trial, conviction, and sentencing, as well as after the Maryland Court of Appeals had affirmed his conviction. In a proceeding following the conviction, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor’s act to suppress the evidence undermined the petitioner’s due process of the law. It remanded the case for a fresh trial regarding the punishment question instead of the guilt question because they believed that nothing within the repressed confession “could have undermined [petitioner’s] offense under the killing in the first degree” (Brockway, 2013). It was held that the petitioner was not denied the constitutional right when their fresh trial was constrained to the punishment question, and the judgment was affirmed. Suppression via the prosecution of favorable evidence to the defendant who had lobbied it undermines due process in contexts where evidence remains material to punishment or guilty, irrespective of the prosecution’s bad faith or good faith. The decision by the Court of Appeals to restrict the petitioner’s fresh trial to the punishment question did not violate their due process right or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because the suppressed evidence was admissible solely on the punishment issue (Crump, 2016).
Main Issues: Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972)
When trials relate to one individual’s testimony against another, the judges must establish who to believe. In contexts where the prosecution witness had made a covenant to testify in return for immunity or leniency from the prosecution, such a deal could influence the witness’s credibility before the court. In this particular case, the petitioner filed the motion for a fresh trial based on the freshly established evidence indicating that the government did not disclose the a...