Giglio V. Us Case Study

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

This is the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1975), Gerald Scarpelli and friend Fred Kleckner was arrested in Illinois for burglary of a house. The officer read both of them their constitutional right. Afterward, Scarpelli admitted that he and Kleckner did, in fact, broke into the house and stole merchandise or money. On July 1965, he pleaded guilty to arm robbery in Wisconsin. Later, he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment but, later they suspended his sentence and given him probation for seven years. The grounds for a revocation were that Scarpelli knownly associated with Fred Kleckner, Jr. a known criminal. At the time of the crime it was also noted that Mr. Kleckner, had an arrest for burglary in Deerfield, Illinois (United State Supreme Court Gagnon v. Scarnelli, (1973)

Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District

“The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate, as such, the specific guarantees found in the Sixth Amendment, although a denial by a State of rights or privileges specifically embodied in that and others of the first eight amendments may, in certain circumstances, or in connection with other elements, operate,

4. Evidence illegally obtained by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from trial whether or not the police acted in good faith?

In the case, Giglio v United States in 1972, it was determined the prosecution has a legal requirement to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense, this rule established the application to exculpatory evidence the prosecutor may be unaware of (McDonald & Means, 2016). In the Giglio case, the prosecution provided a key witness, an accomplice to the crime, who testified he had not been made any promises of immunity for his testimony. Following Giglio’s conviction, the defense discovered there was an offer made to the accomplice by another prosecuting attorney. The case was appealed, overturned, moreover, a new trial was allowed. The credibility of the witness was lost in the previous trial, his statements under oath were that he had

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit admitting that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had confirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment. The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence couldn’t have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals ' ruling was confirmed. A defendant 's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the various state and federal cases that interpret its obligation that the prosecution discloses material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.

Disgrazia did not have an attorney present, and when they searched him they found the key to the storage locker. Mr. Disgrazia was not officially charged, and he did not request an attorney because his rights were not given out verbal by the police. That violates his Fifth Amendment right and it wasn’t a fair Due Process under the Fifth Amendment. The government guarantees every citizen a fair and orderly judicial proceeding. These are fundamental rights and the government can not take them away. Mr. Disgrazia procedural due process was violated, and the procedural due process guarantees a individual a notice and a hearing a sort of process before life, liberty, or property is taken away by the government. In the case Miranda v. Arizona the

This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the “Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;

1) Identify audit procedures that, if employed by Ernst & Whinney during the 1981 USSC audit, might have detected the overstatement of the leased and loaned assets account that resulted from the improper accounting for asset retirements.

In the case of Giglio versus the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the court should not uphold the negligent of a prosecutor. I strongly believe that if a police officer has been disciplined by his or her department for truthfulness his credibility should be disclosed. As a result, he should not be given the opportunity to testify as a witness in a court of law. The primary function of law enforcement is to uphold the law by not neglecting the rights of other. It is their duty as law enforcement agencies to ensure that their credibility is reliable when prosecuting a suspect. Giglio is a term often associated with the issue of law enforcement officer credibility in a court of law. The case justified that when a prosecutor fails to

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),” the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution” (Judge, 2015). Other cases that show where officers of the courts credibility is put into question can be found in United States v. Bagley where “also clarified that impeachment evidence must be disclosed to the defense” (Judge, 2015), this had to do with police informants who the defense could have impeached their testimony, and in the case of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), “imposed upon the prosecutor an affirmative "duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government 's behalf, including the police," and a resulting duty to disclose that evidence to the defense” (Judge, 2015). The above mentioned cases all deal in some form with a person’s right to be able to have a fair trial when they are charged with a crime, and shows examples where the prosecution is required to disclose all evidence even when it is in favor of a defendant.

The Good faith exception issued by the Supreme Court of the United States v. Leon recognized evidence that has been collected in violation of the privacy right protected by the Fourth Amendment to be used in a trial in case the police acted in good faith as answered on detective search warrant (Hall, 2014). During Leon case, the judge issued a warrant which was facially deficient, but without officer recognizing the language as long as there is reasonable reliance on that warrant police officials believe they could execute. (McDonald, 1986) The Court held illegally seized evidence may be used in federal and civil trials to impeach statements made by a defendant who lacks standing on the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court uses the term good faith when referring to the objective reasonableness of the police in the belief of the existence of a warrant that is non-existent benefits. The Court concluded that evidence should not be suppressed where it is discovered by officers in the course of actions that are taken in good faith and reasonable belief that they are authorized. (McDonald, 1986)

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was made applicable to the states in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); the sixth Amendment right to appointed was made applicable to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); and the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment was made applicable to the states in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). The exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct. Generally it does not apply to evidence obtained by private citizens because it would usually have not deterrent effect. Most private citizens are unfamiliar with constitutional rules such s those governing search and seizure, have no reason to learn them, and would not be disciplined for violating them.