MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Dale Wilson FROM: Vibert Jacob DATE: 17 September 2017 SUBJECT: Witness Credibility and Prosecutor Obligation The aspect of the withholding of evidence by the prosecutor has proved to be a crucial factor in determining a fair serving of justice. Evidence that puts to question the credibility of a witness such as a law enforcer needs to be revealed by the prosecutor in an effort of seeking justice. The Memorandum herein puts forth a demonstration of three different cases that show the need for the prosecutor to be mandated to reveal evidence that affects the credibility of a witness and especially a government witness such as a law enforcement officer. Brady vs. Maryland In the case of Brady vs. Maryland, the petitioner filed for a rehearing of a case whereby the petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder during a robbery. The petitioner and his accomplice underwent trials in separate courts as separate cases. The petitioner in the current case of Brady vs. Maryland claimed that the other accomplice had actually committed the crime. The prosecutor of the case withheld crucial evidence of the confession of the other accused that he had committed the crime. It was on such basis that the petitioner of Brady vs. Maryland requested for a re-hearing of the case which was later approved on the basis of the need to re-visit the punishment while rather not the question of guilt. The case of Brady vs. Maryland is attached to the memorandum. Discussion Due to the fact that the prosecutor withheld such crucial evidence, the petitioner was to serve the same punishment as the real committee of the crime. One could describe the need for the revelation of evidence by the prosecutor that may prove to be crucial in changing a large part of the case. In the particular case, the revelation of the confession by the real perpetrator would have changed the ruling of the punishment given to the petitioner. Giglio vs. the United States In the case of Giglio vs. the United States, Giglio a worker at a bank serving as the accused was found guilty of money forgery and sentenced to five years in prison. He later filed a petition requesting for a rehearing of the case when new evidence had risen that his labeled coconspirator and main witness to the case, Mr. Taliento had been promised immunity from prosecution by an assistant United States attorney, Mr. DiPaulo. Such was the basis of the petition but a ruling was made to deny the second hearing but later on, a ruling was made in another court favoring a second hearing. The basis of the ruling for the second hearing being that the witness, Mr. Taliento who was also a co-conspirator of the case’s credibility was in doubt. The reason for doubting the credibility is based on the fact that it was discovered that Taliento had been promised immunity if he testified against his fellow conspirator Mr. Giglio. The case of Giglio vs. the United States is attached to the memorandum. Discussion The cred ...

1. MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. Dale Wilson
FROM: Vibert Jacob
DATE: 17 September 2017
SUBJECT: Witness Credibility and Prosecutor Obligation
The aspect of the withholding of evidence by the prosecutor has
proved to be a crucial factor in determining a fair serving of
justice. Evidence that puts to question the credibility of a
witness such as a law enforcer needs to be revealed by the
prosecutor in an effort of seeking justice. The Memorandum
herein puts forth a demonstration of three different cases that
show the need for the prosecutor to be mandated to reveal
evidence that affects the credibility of a witness and especially
a government witness such as a law enforcement officer.
Brady vs. Maryland
In the case of Brady vs. Maryland, the petitioner filed for a
rehearing of a case whereby the petitioner was found guilty of
first-degree murder during a robbery. The petitioner and his
accomplice underwent trials in separate courts as separate cases.
The petitioner in the current case of Brady vs. Maryland
claimed that the other accomplice had actually committed the
crime. The prosecutor of the case withheld crucial evidence of
the confession of the other accused that he had committed the
crime. It was on such basis that the petitioner of Brady vs.
Maryland requested for a re-hearing of the case which was later
approved on the basis of the need to re-visit the punishment
while rather not the question of guilt. The case of Brady vs.
Maryland is attached to the memorandum.
Discussion
Due to the fact that the prosecutor withheld such crucial

2. evidence, the petitioner was to serve the same punishment as the
real committee of the crime. One could describe the need for the
revelation of evidence by the prosecutor that may prove to be
crucial in changing a large part of the case. In the particular
case, the revelation of the confession by the real perpetrator
would have changed the ruling of the punishment given to the
petitioner.
Giglio vs. the United States
In the case of Giglio vs. the United States, Giglio a worker at a
bank serving as the accused was found guilty of money forgery
and sentenced to five years in prison. He later filed a petition
requesting for a rehearing of the case when new evidence had
risen that his labeled coconspirator and main witness to the
case, Mr. Taliento had been promised immunity from
prosecution by an assistant United States attorney, Mr. DiPaulo.
Such was the basis of the petition but a ruling was made to deny
the second hearing but later on, a ruling was made in another
court favoring a second hearing. The basis of the ruling for the
second hearing being that the witness, Mr. Taliento who was
also a co-conspirator of the case’s credibility was in doubt. The
reason for doubting the credibility is based on the fact that it
was discovered that Taliento had been promised immunity if he
testified against his fellow conspirator Mr. Giglio. The case of
Giglio vs. the United States is attached to the memorandum.
Discussion
The credibility of a government witness thus proves to be a
fundamental issue in the court of law such that a case is viable
for a rehearing if the credibility of the witness is in doubt.
Prosecutors are thus entitled to disclosing information that may
damage the credibility of the witness such as any promise of
immunity that may affect the credibility or the validity of the
testimony provided by the witness.
United States vs. Agurs
In the case of the United States vs. Agurs, the defendant Agurs
was found guilty of second-degree murder where she had
stabbed her lover who later succumbed to his injuries. The

3. defendant then later moved for a rehearing of the case after
finding out new evidence that the victim had a past or history of
violence. The issue is that the prosecutor did not disclose such
information that is deemed to be crucial in augmenting the
defendant’s defense. At the same time, in the particular case,
the prosecutor’s side argued that the defendant had not
requested for the revelation of such evidence. The case of the
United States vs. Agurs is attached to the memorandum. The
question of the mandate or the responsibility of the prosecutor
to reveal such evidence proves to be a crucial factor in the
actual determination of cases.
Discussion
Due to the ability of such evidence to be crucial in determining
a case, it is reasonable for the prosecutor to be handed the
responsibility of providing certain pieces of information such as
the history of a witness or victim in a case. As such, the
credibility of a witness needs to be determined before any
evidence or testimonies are received from the witness, while at
the same time, in the case of the credibility of law enforcement
officers, evidence regarding the history of an officer witness
proves to be crucial for the sake of serving justice and fairness.
The credibility of a witness needs to be determined before any
evidence or testimonies are received from the witness. In the
case of law enforcement officers, it is crucial that the
credibility of an officer is determined before any evidence is
received from the officer while the prosecutor's ability to
withhold any evidence proves to be a crucial factor in the denial
of justice.
Attachments:
Giglio vs. the United States: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/405/150.html
Brady vs. Maryland:

4. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/case.html
United States vs. Agurs: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/427/97.html
As a matter of fact, using the principle of concurrency, we
should begin developing our soft-
ware packages right now.”
Livingston: “Because of the importance of this project, I’m
going to violate our normal struc-
ture and appoint Tim Emary from our planning group as project
leader. He’s not as knowl-
edgeable as you people are in regard to computers, but he does
know how to lay out a schedule
and get the job done. I’m sure your people will give him all the
necessary support he needs.
Remember, I’ll be behind this project all the way. We’re going
to convene again one week from
today, at which time I expect to see a detailed schedule with all
major milestones, team meet-
ings, design review meetings, etc., shown and identified. I’d
like the project to be complete in
eighteen months, if possible. If there are risks in the schedule,
identify them. Any questions?”
THE INVISIBLE SPONSOR1
Some executives prefer to micromanage projects whereas other
executives
are fearful of making a decision because, if they were to make
the wrong
decision, it could impact their career. In this case study, the
president of the company assigned

5. one of the vice presidents to act as the project sponsor on a
project designed to build tooling
for a client. The sponsor, however, was reluctant to make any
decisions.
Moreland Company was well-respected as a tooling design-and-
build
company. Moreland was project-driven because all of its income
came
from projects. Moreland was also reasonably mature in project
management.
When the previous VP for engineering retired, Moreland hired
an executive from a manu-
facturing company to replace him. The new VP for engineering,
Al Zink, had excellent engi-
neering knowledge about tooling but had worked for companies
that were not project-driven.
Al had very little knowledge about project management and had
never functioned as a project
sponsor. Because of Al’s lack of experience as a sponsor, the
president decided that Al should
“get his feet wet” as quickly as possible and assigned him as the
project sponsor on a medium-
sized project. The project manager on this project was Fred
Cutler. Fred was an engineer with
more than twenty years of experience in tooling design and
manufacturing. Fred reported
directly to Al Zink administratively.
Fred understood the situation; he would have to train Al Zink on
how to
function as a project sponsor. This was a new experience for
Fred because

6. subordinates usually do not train senior personnel on how to do
their job. Would Al Zink be
receptive?
Fred explained the role of the sponsor and how there are certain
project documents that
require the signatures of both the project manager and the
project sponsor. Everything seemed
658 NETWORK SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES
1. ©2010 by Harold Kerzner. Reproduced by permission. All
rights reserved.
Background
Assigning the VP
Fred’s Dilemma
to be going well until Fred informed Al that the project sponsor
is the person that the president
eventually holds accountable for the success or failure of the
project. Fred could tell that Al was
quite upset over this statement.
Al realized that the failure of a project where he was the
sponsor could damage his repu-
tation and career. Al was now uncomfortable about having to
act as a sponsor but knew that he
might eventually be assigned as a sponsor on other projects. Al
also knew that this project was
somewhat of a high risk. If Al could function as an invisible
sponsor, he could avoid making

7. any critical decisions.
In the first meeting between Fred and Al where Al was the
sponsor, Al asked Fred for a
copy of the schedule for the project. Fred responded:
I’m working on the schedule right now. I cannot finish the
schedule until you tell me
whether you want me to lay out the schedule based upon best
time, least cost, or least risk.
Al stated that he would think about it and get back to Fred as
soon as possible.
During the middle of the next week, Fred and Al met in the
company’s cafeteria. Al asked
Fred again, “How is the schedule coming along?” and Fred
responded as before:
I cannot finish the schedule until you tell me whether you want
me to lay out the schedule
based upon best time, least cost, or least risk.
Al was furious, turned around, and walked away from Fred.
Fred was now getting nervous
about how upset Al was and began worrying if Al might remove
him as the project manager.
But Fred decided to hold his ground and get Al to make a
decision.
At the weekly sponsor meeting between Fred and Al, once again
Al asked the same ques-
tion, and once again Fred gave the same response as before. Al
now became quite angry and
yelled out:

8. Just give me a least time schedule.
Fred had gotten Al to make his first decision. Fred finalized his
schedule and had it on Al’s
desk two days later awaiting Al’s signature. Once again, Al
procrastinated and refused to sign
off on the schedule. Al believed that, if he delayed making the
decision, Fred would take the
initiative and begin working on the schedule without Al’s
signature.
Fred kept sending e-mails to Al asking when he intended to sign
off on the schedule or, if
something was not correct, what changes needed to be made.
As expected, Al did not respond.
Fred then decided that he had to pressure Al one way or another
into making timely decisions
as the project sponsor. Fred then sent an e-mail to Al that
stated:
I sent you the project schedule last week. If the schedule is not
signed by this Friday, there
could be an impact on the end date of the project. If I do not
hear from you, one way or
another, by this Friday, I will assume you approve the schedule
and I can begin imple-
mentation.
The president’s e-mail address was also included in the CC
location on the e-mail. The
next morning, Fred found the schedule on his desk, signed by Al
Zink.
Case Studies 659

9. QUESTIONS
1. Why do some executives refuse to function as project
sponsors?
2. Can an executive be “forced” to function as a sponsor?
3. Is it right for the sponsor to be the ultimate person
responsible for the success
or failure of the project?
4. Were Al Zink’s actions that of someone trying to be an
invisible sponsor?
5. Did Fred Cutler act appropriately in trying to get Al Zink to
act as a sponsor?
6. What is your best guess as to what happened to the working
relationship
between Al Zink and Fred Cutler?
660 NETWORK SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES