History of the case
The Case Basics
The case was argued on Wednesday, February 24, 1993
The main concerns were the privacy and Freedom of Information Act.
The respondent was Vincent Landano.
The case was decided by Rehnquist Court (1991-1993).
The Opinion number was 508 U.S. 165 (1993).
About the case
Landano was convicted in a New Jersey court for murdering a police officer.
He claimed the prosecution held evidence materials for the case.
Landano was denied post-conviction and federal habeas.
FBI released some evidence materials but withheld others.
He filed an action in the U.S district in New Jersey.
The district court disagreed with the Government’s justification for withholding the information in 1991.
The government discarded the court of appeal need.
Lantana was convicted in 1993 (U.S Department of Justice Para. 1).
The case’s concern
- Individuals’ freedom to access evidence information during prosecution.
- The Handling of evidence information.
Effects on law enforcement
- Shows the weaknesses that exist in dealing with criminal cases.
- Hindrance of justice.
Landano was found guilty of murdering Officer Snow in a New Jersey court in 1993; which he denied. It was alleged that Landano committed the crime during a robbery by an organized gang. In trying to defend himself, he stated that the prosecution had gone against Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S section 83 laws that prohibited hiding some evidence information. In this regard, he presented requests to the FBI on Freedom of Information about the case. In return, the FBI defended itself by stating that, it was protected by Exemption 7 (D) to hold the information. Although later FBI released some files, some were never released. This was opposed by the court on grounds that, unless there existed a clear reason for keeping the information secret, the FBI had no such rights (U.S department Para. 1-4).
Landano later filed a case in the district court requesting all the information to be released. In reaction, the Government defended the FBI by justifying why the bureau withheld some evidence information. In addition, the court rejected the petition because this was a gang-related killing, where the evidence source’s security was to be assured.
The government was not supposed to assume that all sources of evidence data were confidential. The clause covered those individuals whose secrecy had been promised. The government position, in this case, was unjustified because the FBI had evidence information whose confidentiality was not clearly defined.
Sources of evidence; whether ordinary people, security agents, or any other organizations, need confidentiality whenever promised. FBI should use the evidence of witnesses directly and indirectly (U.S department of justice (Para. 5-13). Further still, if any piece of information is held by the FBI, the government has to give an account of the same (Para. 8).
Clear weaknesses in the law were evident because the withholding of information was not justifiable. This was articulated to the fact that exemption 7(D) only warranted that the information source was confidential if only confidentiality was promised to the source (U.S department of justice Para. 6).
The freedom of information gives no clear definition of the word “confidential”. This hinders justice because; there is a likelihood of hiding information by some federal agents (U.S department of justice Para. 15-17). There is no clear explanation on when information should be kept confidential by different security agents (Para. 20).
In conclusion, the confidentiality of information should be assured to witnesses who clearly state the risks associated with their disclosure. This will help in ensuring justice.
Works Cited
United States Department of Justice v. Landano. U.S supreme court media. 2009. Web.
U.S department of justice et al. United States Department of Justice v. Landano (91-2054), 508 U.S 165. Supreme Court collection. 1993. Web.
U.S department of justice. United States department of justice et al. V. Landano 508 U.S 165. Justia. 2009. Web.