Main Issues: Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963)
When committing a crime, the accused remains a US citizen; as a result, he has the full right to a fair trial and compliance with all procedural subtleties. As part of the Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963), it is essential to say that far from the fact that criminals deserve to serve their sentences in prisons after the trial plays a role and the degree of punishment. Punishment should be just following the degree of participation of the offender in the committed act (Hoeffel & Singer, 2014). It will be a boon for both the offender and society.
While considering the case of an officer who served 15 years with his superiors, it is crucial not to convict the defenders of law and order in need of baseless accusations. When considering a case, preparing for prosecution, and issuing a final verdict, prosecutors and the jury should never focus on negative aspects (Petegorsky, 2012). It is always necessary to leave room for the demonstration of exculpatory sides, which can help the accused avoid the most severe punishment. It involved the case of Brady v. Maryland U.S. 83 (1963), when he was sentenced along with a partner who made no secret that he murdered his own, independently of Brady.
Main Issues: Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972)
Prosecutors are required to provide not only solid evidence of the accused’s guilt. Given the need to provide the jury with all points of view (as many points of view as possible), prosecutors can act as defenders (Kovac, 2020). It is not a lawyer’s activity but a complete description of the accused’s motivation to commit a crime (Green, 2012). His fear, sense of danger, affect, anger, stress, and many other factors can affect the commission of a crime and its severity.
It applies not only to work with the accused but to work with witnesses, who can provide the jury and the court with fundamental data. Giglio v. United States U.S. 150 (1972) raised the critical issue of prosecutors’ inaction and unwillingness to go into details when the process drags on for several years. Sometimes prosecutors and judges are changed, and the actors re-develop the facts of the case. A witness is sometimes an interested person who seeks to protect himself by being involved in the crime committed. Sometimes witnesses indirectly participate in the committed crime, disregarding the rules and checks (Kovac, 2020). In this situation, prosecutors act similarly, showing neglect or laziness. It is followed by severe punishment, which does not consider whether the issue of prosecuting the witness was raised by chance or on purpose. The words of witnesses may not always be accurate, and sometimes prosecutors resort to different methods to agree with them.
Main Issues: United States v. Agurs U.S 97 (1976)
A jury must take all the circumstances of the crime committed into account and, at least, speak out during the discussion of the crime and the sentencing. In United States v. Agurs U.S 97 (1976), the court made no significant mistakes, and the prosecutor rightly ignored the possible self-defense of Agurs. Agurs could be frightened and consider the murdered man a dangerous criminal, especially since he had reasons. Nevertheless, full compliance with the lawyer’s requests would probably mean stigmatization towards people who have served their sentences, former prisoners. It would present them as potential violent criminals, ready to threaten everyone they know.
Main Issues: United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985)
The selected case demonstrates that the defendant found that the government would pay money to the witnesses. The failure to disclose this information could impact the decision of the case (United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 1985). It is possible to claim that the prosecutor violated the Brady rule, stipulating that the government should “disclose evidence within its knowledge that is both favorable and material to the defense” (Murray, 2019, p. 285). Consequently, this information denotes that prosecutors’ decisions to hide some information can lead to prejudiced decisions.
Main Issues: Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995)
In this case, the defendant found that the prosecution had failed to present some material evidence that could be favorable for him. The Supreme Court stipulated that Kyles was entitled to a new trial because of the absence of some evidence (United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 1995). According to Kovac (2020), prosecutors can act as defenders if they present all the available materials. That is why the decision was made to hide some objects that could be favorable for Kyles.
Policy Recommendations
It is possible to apply the facts from all the cases to offer recommendations on how to handle the situation with the officer using a police computer to search pornographic websites. I believe that it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that the convicted officer has an almost perfect personal history. The absence of felonies can be a fair argument to avoid imposing severe punishment. The Brady rule should be used because this regulation advocates for considering both favorable and unfavorable evidence (Murray, 2019). Since the court decisions were changed in such cases as United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1995) and United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985), the current situation is also included. One should also admit that the other cases from the memorandum also support this statement. Consequently, the perfect personal history and the promise that the wrongdoing will not happen again are sufficient evidence to restrain from imposing harsh punishment.
References
Green, B. A. (2012). Prosecutors and professional regulation. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 25, 873.
Hoeffel, J. C., & Singer, S. I. (2014). Activating a Brady pretrial duty to disclose favorable information: From the mouths of Supreme Court justices to practice. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 38, 467.
Kovac, M. C. (2020). The role of the public prosecutor in the United States. Revista Acadêmica Escola Superior do Ministério Público do Ceará, 12(1), 253-263.
Murray, J. (2019). Prejudice-based rights in criminal procedure. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 168, 277.
Petegorsky, M. N. (2012). Plea bargaining in the dark: The duty to disclose exculpatory Brady evidence during Plea bargaining. Fordham Law Review., 81, 3599.