Giglio V Us Case Study

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

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