Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Phase 1 Individual Project
Phase 1 Individual Project
Phase 1 Individual Project
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.
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
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.
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