How Far the New York Courts Have Extended the Case Brady vs Maryland - Research Paper Example

Institute BRADY versus MARYLAND The arguing of the case and the decision happened from March 18 to 19th 1963 and may 131963 respectively. In Maryland court and separate trials companion and a petitioner got convicted for a first-degree murder. The sentence for both the petitioner and the convict was death, in the first trial the petitioner admitted that he participated in the murder crime but claimed that his companion did all the actual killing. In the petitioners summation to the jury, the counsel concluded that he was guilty of murder Before the trial, the counsel requested the prosecution to allow the petitioner examine the extrajudicial statements for the companion. The prosecution allowed this but hid the statement in which the companion admits to the actual killing. The petitioner did not notice that statement was missing until after his sentence. After the denial to receive evidence by the prosecution issues of oppression rose that the prosecutor denied the petitioner right to the due process of law. The Maryland court of appeal remanded the case requesting for a new trial, a new trial however was only for the question of punishment This case involved both Brady and Boblit; both found guilty of first-degree murder. In the trials the petitioner( Brady), when the prosecution denied him the evidence in which Boblit admitted to the actual killing he appealed to the Maryland court of appeal which requested foe the new trial. The basis for this trial was the question of punishment, the question of punishment in Brady and Boblits case was a murder committed in an incidence of robbery. The punishment to the crime of murder in Maryland was death or life imprisonment This case brought rise to the Bradys rule, which represents a limited departure from the existing pure adversary model. This is due to the fact that the prosecutor role transcends to that of the adversary. During the litigation of the Bradys crime, that defense should always examine whether the prosecution team acts consistently with the aim to assist the defense in that making of the case or whether it is acting strategically. The Brady versus Maryland case brought about some of the rules used in different courts in New York; this rules resulted from the failure of the prosecutor to provide the information needed by the defendant. In this case as per the fourteenth amendment, due process states that the turnover all the information is a major requirement. The amendments due process states that the suppression of evidence by the prosecution upon request by the defendant, evidence that would help the defendant in the case violates the whole due process irrespective of whether the prosecution holds the evidence out of bad or good faith. This is where the evidence is material to either punishment or guilt. The prosecution, in this case did not provide all the extrajudicial statements, the prosecution withholds the statement where Boblit admits to the killing and through this, and the prosecution denies the petitioner the whole process of law. However, the denial to a new trial in regard to the question of punishment did not deny the petitioners equal protection of the due process of the laws under this amendment. This is because the evidence suppressed was only admissible to the issue regarding punishment. Several leading cases in new York applies this rule in which they call it the Brady rule, some of the cases that have applied this rule include the; people versus Cwikla, people versus hunter, people versus wright and people versus Steadman. This paper contains this cases and how they apply the Brady’s rule PEOPLE versus CWIKLA The charges against Cwikla were those of burglary, possession of a dangerous tool and felony murder, together with him was Thomas cox and Ford. The instruments possessed were connected to those used for the burglary and murder of a tenant in an apartment in New York. Ford remained at large after the arrests of Cox and Cwikla. Cox admitted guilty of the crime of murder, Cwikla, on the other hand, was taken to court finding him guilty of all the crimes (burglary, possession of dangerous instruments and felony murder. Tommy Coxs cooperation towards the case resulted to the defence counsel applying for parole, the assistant district attorney however refused to give materials of parole and also to indicate whether there existed any correspondence. Both the district attorney and the parole board refused to submit all the required documents for the parole of tommy Cox; however, the appellate division receive and appeal regarding the cases forcing them to submit the copies os the pretrial correspondence found in the assistant district attorneys folder. It is in this case where the prosecutor refused to respond to Cwikla application for parole; the prosecutor has a duty of disclosing the correspondence between the parole board and the district attorney to the defense counsel. The basis for this correspondence contain the cooperation of the prosecution witness in a trial of the witness accomplices.it is of fundamental importance to submit all the evidence in possession by the prosecution, the prosecution should turn over all the exculpatory evidence to the defendant which ensures the right to a fair trial. In addition, the non-disclosure of some evidence fails the fairness, and it affects the credibility within the rule of a “fair trial” especially when this evidence determines whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. PEOPLE versus HUNTER In the people versus Hunters case, prosecution withheld the information about and the complainant that accused another man of a date rape before the trial against the defendant accused of date rape. In the people versus hunter case; the charges against the defendant, Jeffrey hunter were those of sodomy rape and sexual abuse. In the case a young woman testified that hunter raped and assaulted her when he visited her, the people learnt that the same woman accused another man of raping her in his home; they however withheld the information failing to tell the defendant. Through this, the people violated the Brady’s rule, which is against withholding evidences that would help in solving the case fairly. It was after the trial when Jeffrey taught of parker, another man the complainant accused of raping her. He also learnt that the alleged rape took place in the defendants (parker) home on 10th October 2002 just ten months before Jeffrey’s case and a month before his trial. In parker’s case, the complainant consented to having sex with him but still accused him of rape; however, after the case parker later pleaded guilty to attempting to rape the complainant, his sentence was seven years and six months, which run with a sentence, imposed to him on an unrelated robbery. It was later that Jeffrey accuse the people of violating the Brady’s rule, after the motion to CPL440.10, the parties involved in the case stated that it was the prosecutor who withheld the information from the defendant soon after learning about it. The defendant had the right to obtain the Brady’s due process if the information withheld by the people would have helped solved the case fairly. PEOPLE versus WRIGHT In this case the prosecution refuses to inform the defendant that the complainant was a police informant. The complainant was an informant in an assault case in which an officers testimony deferred both at the pretrial and at trial; the offices testimony was a violation. The crimes that resulted to the defendant’s conviction were the crimes of assault in the second degree; the assault was against a person of less than 11 years old. This aggravated assault endangered the welfare of the child In this case Adam wright and his girlfriend sought medical treatment for their daughter, according to the medical personnel the girl suffered from numerous bruises and orbital fracture. The court charged Dober of endangering the welfare of their child; she pleaded guilty to this charges agreeing to testify against Adam, after the trial the court charged Adam sentencing him to seven years in prison. The prosecution however failed to inform the defendant about the complainant (Washington) violating the Brady’s rule. The case however brings the question of whether the court should inform aa defendant in case the complainant operated in another case. If the defendant had the information, she would be armed with the knowledge of the complainant then she would have defendant herself PEOPLE versus STEADMAN In this case the district attorney withholds a deal made by the prosecutor in an office for leniency to cooperating informant. The crimes in the case are those of manslaughter and weapon possession second degree. These crimes resulted to the death of Peterson.in this case the district attorney failed to disclose some information that would have resulted to a fair trial, this failure to disclose the new information about the agreement about McCarthy and Malloy’s counsel would result to a new trial. The prosecutor should give information that would help in a fair trial for the defendant; it does not matter if the assistants involved in the trails are aware of the agreement or not. The prosecutor has obligations to correct all the false information given by the witnesses in the trial, for the promises made by prosecutor should be binding to others in a criminal law enforcement system. In this case, the information withheld by the prosecutor violated the Brady’s rule Work cited "New York Criminal Defense." : Brady v Maryland. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. . Read More