Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Government corruption
Supreme court cases quiz
Government corruption
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Government corruption
Citation: Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) Facts: Gigilio was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for passing forged money orders at a local bank. Mr. Robert Taliento is the local bank teller, alleged co-conspirator, and the only witness linking the appellant to the crime. It was Taliento who supplied Giglio with the customer’s bank signature card and it was Taliento who cashed the forged money orders. During the trial defense counsel cross-examined Taliento in regards to him receiving prosecutorial leniency in exchange for his testimony. Both Taliento and the Government attorney denied that any such deal existed. It was only after the appellant was convicted and sentenced to prison did the evidence of Taliento’s deal come to light. Issue: Whether or not the Government is obligated to provide exculpatory evidence in the form of impeachable evidence regardless of their good or bad faith in a criminal trial. Rules: Nondisclosure by prosecution violates due process. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 …show more content…
Illinois, which follows the opinion regarding the introduction of false evidence to the court and jury as a deliberate deception but takes it one step further. Napue argues when the State allows false evidence to be heard in a case without it being corrected this too was an intentional deception. Taliento took the stand during the appellant’s trial and was questioned vigorously by defense counsel as to whether or not he would receive prosecutorial leniency in exchange for his testimony. Time after time Taliento refuted the allegation of the agreement only for the appellant to later discover this was indeed the case. The deal was discovered in the opposition affidavit penned by the first prosecutor on the case, as well as the affidavit filed by the United States Attorney. The court perceives the prosecutor’s office as one entity to which a deal made by one assistant would be attributed the office as a
Holhan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). 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. 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.
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
NEW YORK, Apr. 2, 1992 -- The infamous “Teflon Don,” John Gotti, former head of the Gambino family was convicted and sentenced to life in prison today without possibility of parole. He was convicted on 5 counts of murder (Castellano and Bilotti, Robert DiBernardo, Liborio Milito and Louis Dibono), conspiracy to commit murder, illegal gambling, loan sharking, racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice, bribing a public official and tax evasion (Goodstein, 1992). Acting as boss, John Gotti was believed to have made the Gambino family more than $500 million in revenue from illegal gambling, drug trafficking, extortion, and stock fraud (“John Joseph Gotti Jr”, 2014). During the trial, the judge ordered that the jurors stay anonymous, identified only by number, in order to avert a repeat of the jury tampering that occurred involving previous trials with Mr. Gotti (FBI, 2007). Gotti is recorded as keeping the same half smile he wore the entire trial, even as he was informed that the rest of his life would be spent in a cell block (Lubasch, 1992).
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
The moral dilemma identified in the Lake Pleasant Bodies case is an attorney’s disturbing conflict with his competing rights to his client and as Badaracco (2009) states “…and his empathy for the victims’ families” (Badaracco, 2009, p. 6). In the case study, Attorney Frank Armani sympathizes with the father of a victim and questions divulging confidential information that would breech the attorney-client agreement with his client Frank Garrow. Additionally, the moral dilemma includes the overwhelming decisions Armani faced constructing a plausible defense for this client and at the same time setting aside his personal reservations regarding his clients guilt.
The acceptance of fingerprint identification in the judicial system as scientific evidence has become like expert testimony. Advances in image processing have impacted how fingerprints can be lifted without being destroyed, which has led to fingerprint evidence becoming the silent testimony leading to more conventions. In the case of the United States v. Byron C. Mitchell Criminal Action No. 96-00407, fingerprints found in the car were the scientific evidence which identified Mitchell as a participant in an armored car robbery (Appellant Counsel for Appellee, 2003).
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
CREDIBILITY: I choose this topic because over the years I have heard of cases where someone was wrongly convicted and I think that there needs to be a set standard for how the evidence is collected and that it should not just be based on an educated guess.
judge whether or not a person should be put to death, even if it is their wish.
“At 3:00 P.M. on April 15, 1920, F.A. Parmenter, a shoe factory paymaster, and guard, Alessandro Berardelli, were murdered” (“Sacco and Vanzetti Case”). “[Both] were carrying $15,776 of factory payroll through the main street of South Braintree, Massachusetts” (D’Attilio). The criminals were not caught at the scene, so police set up traps in order to catch them. On May 5, 1920, Sacco and Vanzetti were caught in this police trap and were accused of committing the Braintree crime based on little evidence and few witness approvals (D’Attilio). “[Sacco and Vanzetti] were indicted on September 24, 1920 and put to trial on May 31, 1921 at Dedham Norfolk County” (“The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti”). The trial would decide whether or not Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty for committing the crime.
The death penalty. It is a punishment handed down for the most heinous of crimes. The words themselves evoke many, many passionate emotions. The arguments, both for and against, are endless and it seems most of them have merit. In the end, it is ourselves who have to decide what we believe in.
The right of the people to have a trial by a jury from the people who are citizens of the United States.
This case illustrated that there were real consequences to white collar crime. In addition to paying the fifty million dollar fine, he relinquished another fifty million dollars of his illegal trading profits. (He still had millions remaining, however, from his illegal gains.) His actual prison sentence was three years, yet he served only twenty-two months in the federal prison at Lompoc, California, which was known to have a “country-club” atmosphere.