TYPES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE

TYPES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE

Phase 1 Individual Project
Isaac Joseph
May 26, 2015
Colorado Technical University
CJUS440-1501B-01
Prof. Dawn Howell

TYPES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE

Title: Brady v. Maryland 373.U.S. 83 (1963)

Facts: Brady was convicted of murder in the first degree. At his trail he admitted his role in the
planning and commission of the crime, but denied personally committing the murder. His
defense admitted his clients guilt as an accomplice and asks the court not to impose the death
penalty due to the minor role in crime. Prior to trial, Bradys defense attorney requested access to
all of the statements made against his client in which most were provided, except the one
statement in which the accomplice admitted to actually committing the murder. In the post
conviction proceedings raised the issue and demanded a new trail.
Issues: The issue held questioned if withholding of evidence favorable to a defendant violate that
defendants due process right and under the circumstances of this case does the limitation on the
new proceedings as to sentencing only violate the defendants due process rights.
Decisions: The court held that yes withholding of evidence that is favorable to the defendant as
to show guilt or punishment violate the defendants due process right, which are protect by the
fifth and fourteenth amendment, irrespective of the intentions of the prosecutors. The court also
held that the defendants due process rights were not violated when his new trail was restricted to
sentencing only, as the evidence in question only pertain to his culpability, not his guilt.
Reasoning: In the opinion of Justice Douglas, the court discussed past cases of concerning
misconduct sufficient to violating the due process rights of defendant. In those cases the court
held that perjury or failure to correct inaccurate testimony deprived the defendant of his rights
and that this case did exactly that. The court concluded that suppression of evidence alone is
sufficient enough to violate due process rights. Evidence is material to show guilt and enact
punishments without regards to the reason behind the suppression. According to the Court due
process requirements not only constrain the behavior of prosecutors, but ensure that the process

TYPES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE

itself is fair such that the result is just. Next, the Court considered the appropriateness of the
remedy, to wit, the demand for a new trial but the limitation of that trial to the sentencing phase
alone. The court found that distinction from other jurisdictions did not aide the petitioners
claims here. According the decision made by the Maryland Court of Appeals nothing in the
suppressed evidence could have made the defendants guilt less or served to sufficient enough to
alleviate him of responsibility for any crime other than that of murder in the first degree. While
the evidence was relevant to determining a fair punishment, the Court concluded that the jury
would have had no basis to alter their assessment of his guilt or the crime of which he was
convicted.
Dissenting opinions: In Dissent Justice Harlan wrote that he think the only question in this case
was did the order of the Maryland Court of Appeals granting a new trial, limited to the issue of
punishment, violate petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection? He argued that
nothing in the record would have made the statement relevant during time in which guilt was
already admitted during the trail. In a separate opinion file by Justice White, he argued that the
Court should have not reached the due process issue because it was unclear on whether the
decision rested on state or federal grounds. He suggested that It certainly is not the case, as it
may be suggested, that or without it, the Court would be assuming that the court below was
correct in finding a violation of petitioner's rights in the suppression of evidence, the federal
question he wants decided here still remains, namely, whether denying him a new trial on guilt as
well as punishment deprives him of equal protection.

TYPES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE

Title: Giglio V. United States 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

Facts: Giglio filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence contending
that the Government failed to disclose an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in
return for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney who
presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be
prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant who tried the case was
unaware of the promise.
Issues: The issue held questioned if withholding of evidence violate that defendants due process
right.
Decisions: The court held, in favor of Giglio, that due process required that he be granted a new
trail and reversed and remanded.
Reasoning: The case relied on the testimony of the key witness and without it there was no case
or evidence against the defendant, therefore there could not have been an indictment. The found
that this testimony was an important issue and any evidence of an agreement or understanding
with the future prosecution of the witness was relevant and the jury was entitled to know about it.
Dissenting opinions: No dissention opinion.

In case brief presented above there are two types of important evidence present, relevant
evidence and exculpatory evidence. Relevant evidence is that evidence that has any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable than it would otherwise be without the evidence. Relevancy is the basic test for the
admissibility of evidence. (THE COCHRAN FIRM). Evidence is indeed relevant when it
applicable to the issues presented in the case, referring to the probative value. For example, Jane

TYPES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE

is charged with petty theft for steal costume makeup from Party City Costume Store. The
prosecution would like to offer the testimony of her mother because she refused to but the make
up for Jane. This evidence would be relevant because it proved that Jane had a motive to commit
the crime. This is also found in the case of Giglio V. United States 405 U.S. 150 (1972).With the
testimony of the key witness there would have not been a case, evidence, indictment against
Giglio. Relevant evidence must have some type of logical connection to the crime to prove or
disprove. The connection does not have to strong but has to be a link in the chain.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is favorable to the defendant in crime. This

example can be found the case brief presented above. In Brady v. Maryland 373.U.S. 83 (1963),
the prosecution withheld evidence that would have been in favor of the defendant. Exculpatory
evidence tend to exonerate the defendant of guilt and thought that was not the case in Brady case
the evidence withheld was still favorable of defendant to prove that he had a lesser role in
committing the crime. In light of the Brady case the Brady Rule became a permanent part of
criminal law. This rule requires prosecution to disclose material exculpatory evidence into the
possession of the defense. If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence
under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed.

TYPES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE

Works Cited
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Exculpatory Evidence. Retrieved from WEX:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exculpatory_evidence
David S. Kemp. (n.d.). Brady v. Maryland . Retrieved from JUSTIA:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/case.html
Giglio v. United States . (n.d.). Retrieved from JUSTIA:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/case.html
THE COCHRAN FIRM. (n.d.). When is Evidence Relevant? Retrieved from Cochran Firm:
http://www.cochranfirm.com/resources/Ask-our-Lawyers/relevantevidence.html