Giglio v. United States

Last updated
Giglio v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 12, 1971
Decided February 24, 1972
Full case nameJohn Giglio v. United States
Citations405 U.S. 150 ( more )
92 S. Ct. 763; 31 L. Ed. 2d 104; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 83
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Holding
Prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinion
MajorityBurger, joined by unanimous
Justices Powell and Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1] This is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland , [2] requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel. [3] As a result of this case, the term Giglio material is sometimes used to refer to any information pertaining to deals that witnesses in a criminal case may have entered into with the government. [4]

Contents

Background

In June 1966, bank officials at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. discovered that Robert Taliento, a teller at the bank, had cashed several forged money orders. When he was questioned by the FBI, Taliento confessed that he had supplied John Giglio, the petitioner, with signature cards from one of the bank's customers, which Giglio used to forge $2,300 in money orders. Taliento then processed the forged money orders through the bank.

An affidavit indicated that Assistant U.S. Attorney DiPaola struck a deal with Taliento, promising that he would not be prosecuted for the crime if he testified against Giglio. Taliento testified before a grand jury, resulting in Giglio's indictment.

Giglio's trial, two years after the indictment, was prosecuted by a different prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Golden. DiPaola did not inform Golden of the deal struck with Taliento, and Taliento assured Golden prior to the commencement of the trial that no such deal had been made. In addition, U.S. Attorney Hoey personally consulted with both Taliento and Taliento's attorney prior to trial, emphasizing that Taliento would definitely be prosecuted if he did not testify, but that if he did testify, whether he was prosecuted would depend on the "good judgment and conscience of the Government." [5]

At trial, Taliento testified "Nobody told me I wouldn't be prosecuted" and "I believe I still could be prosecuted." [6] The trial court did not attempt to reconcile the apparent conflict between DiPaola and Golden. It proceeded on the premise that even if DiPaola had made such a promise it was not authorized, and its disclosure to the jury would not have affected the verdict. [5]

Giglio was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. While his appeal was pending, his counsel discovered evidence of the government's discussions with Taliento. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the evidence that was not disclosed required a new trial under the due process criteria that had been enunciated in Napue v. Illinois [7] and Brady v. Maryland . [2]

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court began its analysis by noting that deliberately deceiving the trial court and jury by presenting evidence known to be false had been held to be incompatible with the "rudimentary demands of justice" as early as Mooney v. Holohan . [8] [5] In Napue, the Court had held that the same result occurs "when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." [5] In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material, exculpatory evidence required a new trial. [5]

In Giglio's case, the Court found that neither DiPaola's authority nor his failure to inform his superior Hoey or his associate Golden was controlling. [9] The Court held that, regardless of whether the failure to disclose was intentional or negligent, disclosing the information remained the responsibility of the prosecutor in its position as spokesman for the government; and that a promise made by one attorney on the case must be attributed to the government. [9]

The Court noted that the government's case relied almost entirely on Taliento's testimony, and without it, there could have been no indictment, and no evidence to take to a jury. The Court found that this made Taliento's credibility an important issue; any evidence of an agreement or understanding with respect to Taliento's future prosecution was relevant to his credibility, and the jury was entitled to know about it. [10] The Court held that due process required that Giglio be granted a new trial, and reversed and remanded. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

In common law jurisdictions, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rubin Carter</span> American boxer

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was an American-Canadian middleweight boxer, wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for murder, until released following a petition of habeas corpus after almost 20 years in prison.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery (law)</span> Pre-trial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

In the legal system of the United States, a Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense. The prosecution failed to do so for Brady, and he was convicted. Brady challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Richard Convertino is a former federal prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan. Convertino was the lead Assistant U.S. Attorney in the "Detroit Sleeper Cell" prosecutions of Karim Koubriti and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi. However, the U.S. Department of Justice subsequently removed Convertino from his position and asked courts to dismiss those convictions, on the grounds that Convertino had failed to disclose evidence to which the defense was entitled.

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called "act-of-production doctrine". Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.

Shareef Cousin is an African-American man from New Orleans who was convicted of the first-degree murder of Michael Gerardi in 1996 and sentenced to death as a juvenile in Louisiana. At age 17, he became the youngest condemned convict to be put on death row in Louisiana, and one of the youngest in the United States.

Sharon Faye Keller is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. She is a Republican.

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that a prosecutor has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and United States v. Bagley.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training.

Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Government is not entitled to a presumption that a source is confidential within the meaning of Exemption 7(D) of the Freedom of Information Act whenever the source provides information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the course of a criminal investigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grand juries in the United States</span> Groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings

Grand juries in the United States are groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings, chiefly investigating potential criminal conduct and determining whether criminal charges should be brought. The grand jury originated under the law of England and spread through colonization to other jurisdictions as part of the common law. Today, however, the United States is one of only two jurisdictions, along with Liberia, that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.

Kimberly M. Gardner is an American politician and attorney from the state of Missouri. She was the circuit attorney for the city of St. Louis, Missouri. She previously served as a member of the Missouri House of Representatives.

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that established the standard for materiality under Brady v. Maryland.

References

  1. ↑ Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
  2. 1 2 Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
  3. ↑ Judge, Lisa A. (November 2005). "Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liars Squad Coming to Your Town?". The Police Chief. 72 (11).
  4. ↑ Franklin, Erica G. (February 1999). "Waiving Prosecutorial Disclosure in the Guilty Plea Process: A Debate on the Merits of 'Discovery' Waivers". Stanford Law Review. 51 (3): 567, 575. JSTOR   1229265.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153.
  6. ↑ Giglio, 405 U.S. at 151.
  7. ↑ Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959)
  8. ↑ Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935).
  9. 1 2 Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154.
  10. ↑ Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154–55.
  11. ↑ Giglio, 405 U.S. at 155.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.