Kyle V. Whitley Case Study

The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved

Whitley, Kyles was tried for murder, convicted and sentenced to death. However, upon review of his case, it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to give evidence about a witness, a man named “Beanie”, and several other pieces of material evidence. Since these were not given to the defense and the evidence was significant, he was given a new trial (United states v., 1976). What separates this case from the others is the fact that the evidence suppressed was witness testimony and the witness’ background and prior statements. The testimony of “Beanie” in this case was important, as it had “significant inconsistencies and affirmatively self-incriminating assertions (Kyles v. whitley, 1995)”. Because this information and prior testimony relevant to the case weren’t released, the conviction was overturned. This is relevant to the dilemma because one of the areas that had importance to the defense was that the witness wasn’t consistent in their testimony and that led to issues with their effectiveness as a witness. Referring back to the dilemma and the officer’s conduct, the officer wasn’t consistent in their testimony, namely that they denied wrongdoing and later confessed. This shows that the officer is an inconsistent witness and that if this is discovered, and the prosecution must disclose that information, he can be impeached as a witness. This will mean that he is not as effective in the criminal justice

The bell suggests that the action should have set off “warning bells”, or given a warning that it may not be the best course of action. This student can’t clearly say whether the action may have rung a bell that it was wrong, but it was clear from his actions that he knew the action was wrong as he tried to cover it up. The book suggests that if the action is against any written procedures, it is wrong to take it. This action was clearly against the rules, as it prompted an investigation into the incident and the officer would have known that over the course of fifteen years of service. And the candle asks what are the ramifications of the action if found out and whether the action is correct based on that information. As the action was against the rules and that if he was found doing it, there would be disciplinary measures taken, that should have also told him that this was the wrong course of action. Looking at the whole incident in the whole of the ethical system, we see that the action was wrong to take from the beginning. Taking the action had no future benefit and would have resulted in discipline if found out. Thus, we can reach the conclusion that the action that he took wasn’t ethical. And looking at it form a Biblical standpoint, the officer was wrong from the beginning. Looking at pornography is