United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
Since 1963, a series of United States Supreme Court case decisions have clarified that in criminal
cases, prosecutors must disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the defendant. This
includes information that may be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses,
including law enforcement officers. These decisions mean that police officers who have
documented histories of lying-in official matters are liabilities to their agencies, and these
histories may render them unable to testify credibly.
Summarize the main issues that are involved in the following United States Supreme Court
cases. You must have at least 2–3 pages, not including your title page.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
Sample Solution
Respondent was convicted of second-degree murder for killing one Sewell with a knife during a fight. Evidence at the trial disclosed, inter alia, that Sewell, just before the killing, had been carrying two knives, including the one with which respondent stabbed him, that he had been repeatedly stabbed, but that respondent herself was uninjured. Subsequently, respondent’s counsel moved for a new trial, asserting that he had discovered that Sewell had a prior criminal record (including guilty pleas to charges of assault and carrying a deadly weapon, apparently a knife) that would have tended to support the argument that respondent acted in self-defense, and that the prosecutor had failed to disclose this information to the defense. The District Court denied the motion on the ground that the evidence of Sewell’s criminal record was not material, because it shed no light on his character that was not already apparent from the uncontradicted evidence, particularly the fact that he had been carrying two knives, the court stressing the inconsistency between the self-defense claim and the fact that Sewell had been stabbed repeatedly while respondent was unscathed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence of Sewell’s criminal record was material and that its nondisclosure required a new trial because the jury might have returned a different verdict had the evidence been received.
