Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. This is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland, requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel.[1] As a result of this case, the term Giglio material is sometimes used to refer to any information pertaining to deals that witnesses in a criminal case may have entered into with the government.[2]
December 5, 2017
A READER WHO SAYS HE IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE EMAILS:
Though to be clear, I’m not a former prosecutor. But with no recording and a witness who’s been dismissed for bias. . . .
Did the prosecution tell Flynn’s lawyer that their main witness against him was removed for bias? Since Strzok led the interview and his testimony would be needed to establish untruthfulness, he is a critical witness not just a prosecutor. If not disclosed, would this not be a Giglio violation? This is the kind of misconduct that can get a case dismissed and a lawyer disbarred. It is a Constitutional violation. This has bothered me since I heard about it.Me too.
Though to be clear, I’m not a former prosecutor. But with no recording and a witness who’s been dismissed for bias. . . .
It should be as Mills and the muslim woman were not charged
ReplyDeletea felony for lying to the fbi. Selective discrimination.
Selective discrimination.
DeletePar for the course.