Disciplinary Assignment

Student Name:
Criterion	Point Value	Points Possible	Points given & instructor comments
All key components of the question are answered in the paper	18	100
Clear, logical flow to paper	18
Major points are stated clearly	18
Major points are supported by the following: 1. lecture material or Scripture 2. good examples (pertinent conceptual or personal examples are acceptable), 3. thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, comparing/contrasting concepts)	20
Spelling, grammar & APA	16
Sufficient length (2.5 pages), & title page	10

Disciplinary Assignment Part 2 Grading Rubric

Total Points: _____/100

[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]

1

Running Head: Disciplinary Assignment

CJUS 520- Disciplinary Assignment

Jasonus Tillery

Liberty University

CJUS 520- Disciplinary Assignment-Part 1

The United States Supreme Court is the absolute highest court in the country. It generally hears cases that involve issues of federal law. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the federal and state courts (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013). When a case is referred to the Supreme Court, the decision that is derived is final because there is no other court to appeal to. Generally, when a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, it usually means that there were issues or controversy involved in the cases in the State or Federal Court. There are three cases that were tried at the Supreme Court level that are of particular interest to this class: Brady vs. Maryland (1963), Giglio vs. United States (1972), and United States vs. Agurs (1976). Each of these cases presented issues, which will be discussed below.

Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

In the Brady vs. Maryland case, Brady the defendant and his companion were convicted of first-degree murder and were sentenced to death. During the trial, Brady admitted to being at the crime scene and participating in the crime, but he stated that his companion was the one who actually committed the murder. Brady’s attorney did not contest the fact that Brady was guilty, he or she only pleaded with the jury to not return with a capital punishment verdict. The defendant’s lawyer however, was not privy to the fact that Brady’s companion had admitted to murdering the victim alone. Prior to the start of the trial, the defendant’s attorney requested to see all the evidence that the prosecutors had in their possession. However, the prosecutors failed to disclose Brady’s companion’s confession. Brady’s attorney was not aware of the confession until after his client’s trial. At that point, Brady had already been convicted and sentenced (Hooper & Thorpe, 2007). The prosecutor is required by law to disclose to the defense any evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Failure to do so denies the defendant to due process of the law. Therefore, there had to be a new trial, but not to determine guilt, rather than to determine Brady’s punishment. Brady had already confessed to his participation in the crime, so the sentence of death was what had to be re-tried. Although many would disagree with the fact that the prosecutor has to disclose information favorable to the defendant, it is still the law. Therefore, violating this law results in a violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.

Giglio vs. United States vs. 150 (1972)

In this case, the defendant Giglio was being prosecuted for forging $2300 in money orders, which at the time was a significant amount of money. The controversy in this case derived from the testimony of Giglio’s Co-conspirator Robert Taliento. Taliento was the only witness that the prosecution had that linked Giglio to the crime. Taliento struck a deal with the U.S. Attorney, which stated that if he testified against Giglio he himself would not be prosecuted. He testified that while he was a teller at a bank, he would provide customer’s signature cards to Giglio. Giglio in turn took the signature cards and forged $2300 worth of money orders. Giglio’s trial did not commence until two years later (U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2013). He was sentenced to five years in prison. While Giglio was waiting for appeal his attorneys discovered the government failed to disclose the fact that Taliento was promised immunity in exchange for his testimony. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine if the evidence withheld required a new trial under the due process criteria that had been enunciated in the Brady vs. Maryland trial, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The court held that disclosing pertinent information was the responsibility of the prosecutor and failure to do so was a violation of Giglio’s Fifth Amendment rights (U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2013). The court had to rule that due process required Giglio to have a new trial (U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2013). Once again one can see the importance of full disclosure of the prosecutor to the defense. Although full disclosure may not have made a difference in the outcome of the trial, it is still required and failure to do so is a violation of due process.

United States vs. Agurs (1976)

In the United States vs. Agurs, Agurs, the defendant was on trial for second-degree murder for killing her estranged husband with a knife during a domestic dispute. The victim had been stabbed repeatedly and the accused was uninjured. The defendant claimed that she killed her husband in self-defense. Sewell had previous charges of assault and carrying a deadly weapon, however, the prosecutor failed to disclose this to Agur’s attorney. Once the defense discovered this information, they motioned for a new trial, but it was denied by the district court on the grounds that Sewell’s criminal record was not relevant. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling because failure to disclose this information did not allow for a fair trial and violated the due process clause. The case was re-tried.

In all three cases the prosecution failed to disclose significant information to the defense that would allow the defendants to a fair trial. One would think that it is the responsibility of the defense to find out all the pertinent information that will aid in their client’s defense. However, according to the law, any information discovered by the prosecutor or defense that could have a significant outcome on the verdict must be disclosed. Failure to do so can result in new trials, reversals, etc. as seen in the three trials above.

Professional Memorandum

It was brought to my attention by my Deputy Chief of Police that Officer John Smith is being investigated for the use of pornographic websites while on duty. When approached about the illegal use of the sites on the agency computer, the officer denied the allegations. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the officer used his own username and password on the agency computer. Once this information was brought forth, Officer Smith finally admitted his transgression and apologized stating that it would never happen again. The officer has only had one discipline in his 15 years at the agency. The discipline was over 10 years ago and there is no correlation to what he currently admitted to doing. As a law enforcement officer, it is imperative that one is truthful and credible at all times. An officer’s credibility is essential to the agency’s ability to carry out its missions (Judge, 2005). Officers are required to handled privileged information, secure information, handle drugs, money, process crime scenes, maintain confidential information, and guns (Judge, 2005). Therefore, an officer’s word and credibility has to be almost flawless. Besides the fact that they have to handle very sensitive and crucial information, law enforcement officers must be honest and truthful at all times in the event that they have to testify in the court of law.

There are five Supreme Court cases that make it imperative that the officers are trustworthy, honest, and uphold the law at all costs. In the case of Brady vs. Maryland, suppression of evidence by the prosecution led the court to rule in favor of the defendant. This case marked the beginning of the trend of the prosecutors divulging any information that they came across that could help the defense (Hooper & Thorpe, 2007).

In the Giglio vs. United States case, the prosecutor had promised the co-conspirator he would not prosecute him in exchange for his testimony. The court ruled in favor of Giglio due to the fact that there was non-disclosure of evidence and that affects the credibility of the prosecution. Once again the theme of non-disclosure was highlighted in a case (U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2013).

The defendant Agurs, (in the United States vs. Agurs case) due process rights’ were violated because the prosecutor failed to disclose that Agur’s victim had a history of weapons possession and assault pleas. Since Agurs claimed that she murdered the victim in self-defense, leaving out the fact that the victim had a violent history definitely could have had an effect on the verdict.

The United States vs. Bagley was the case that set the precedence that impeachment of evidence must be disclosed to the defense. The thought process was the same as other information that had to be disclosed: if material evidence is given to the defense attorney, then the information could possibly lead to a different verdict.

The last Supreme Court case that makes it imperative that law enforcement officers be trustworthy, honest, and upholds the law at all costs, is the Kyles vs. Whitley case. This case set the precedence for making it the prosecutor’s duty to learn any favorable evidence for the defense regarding those acting on the government’s behalf, including the police.

The Supreme Court decisions in all 5 of the cases above creates a responsibility for the prosecutor to learn of and disclose of any information that could discredit the case’s witnesses, especially law enforcement officers. If a law enforcement officer is a witness in any case, the prosecutor must rely on that officer’s agency to inform him or her of any possible credibility issues that the officer has had in official matters (Serpas &Hagar, 2010). If the police officer has had any misconduct that involves dishonesty, this could definitely destroy his or her credibility in court, as the prosecutor must disclose this information to the defense.

In light of the above information, I have no choice but to terminate Officer Smith. He not only violated company policy by using the agency computer to visit pornographic websites while on the clock, but when questioned about the offense, he repeatedly lied about what he had done. Officer Smith has broken our trust in him as an officer. At this point, I am also questioning if he has been dishonest in other aspects of his job. If we keep him on the force, this incidence will have to be documented in great detail. There will be permanent evidence that he was dishonest during an official police investigation. Therefore, if Officer Smith ever has to testify in court of law, we would have to divulge this information to the prosecutor who would then have to divulge the information to the defense attorney. In any case that Officer Smith would have to testify in, his credibility would be questioned. This could result in the jury siding with the defendant in the cases in which he is involved. I cannot risk the possibility of justice not being served to criminals due to a dishonest mistake of one officer. Hopefully, Officer Smith’s termination will be an example to all the other officers. They must know the importance of being honest and credible. Anything less will cause them to lose their job.

References Hooper, L., & Thorpe, S. (2007, May 31). Brady vs. Maryland Material in the United States District Courts: Rules Orders and Policies. Judge, Lisa A. (November 2005). Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liars Squad Coming to Your Town?. The Police Chief, 72(11). Serpas, Ronal, & Hagar, Michael. (August 2010). The Untruthful Employee: Is Termination the Only Response?. The Police Chief, LXXVII(8). Supreme Court of the United States. (2013, March). Supreme Court Governmet. Retrieved Feburary 2, 2017, from www.supremecourt.gov. U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2013, April 5). Brady vs Maryland 373 U.S> 83 (1963). U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2013, April 5). Giglio vs. United States vs 150 (1972). U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2013, April 4). United States vs. Agurs (1976).

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? Order now!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!