Surname 4 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Disclosure of Past Misconduct by Officers One of the dilemmas that face the courts today is what a prosecutor should do if he or she is aware of the past misconduct of a police officer involved in the case. In other words, is the prosecutor obliged to disclose such past misconducts or dishonesty by the officer who is involved in a pending case to the defendant? However, the answer to the question is that it is not an obligation and the prosecution may sometimes disclose such issues (Welty, 1). More importantly, the dishonesty or misconduct of the officer serves as a tool for impeachment in the ongoing case. The cases of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976) are used here to analyze the subject. Noteworthy, a number of factors determine whether the misconduct or dishonesty by an officer is important in the pending case. First, the case must take into consideration how long ago the dishonesty or misconduct took place. For that matter, the more recent the misconduct the higher the chances that it will be considered valuable to the pending case. Furthermore, the case considers how serious the misconduct by the officer was. Therefore, more serious acts will obviously be considered material to the case. In addition, consideration must be given to how conclusively the case of the misconduct was established. The information will thus be material only if it is more likely that the officer engaged in the misconduct. In certain situations, the dishonesty may have resulted in a fact pattern similar to the current case. For instance, an officer may falsify a search warrant in both former case and current case and as such, the information is considered material. More importantly, it must be considered whether the role of the officer in question is key to the current case or just peripheral. In addition, the case must determine whether the defendant in the case is planning to present his/her case based on the dishonesty or misconduct of the officer. If an officer plays a key role in the case, the information concerning misconduct will be vital. Similarly, if the defendant plans to use the dishonesty or misconduct information by the officer to present the case, the information is regarded as important. Finally, the judges consider whether the misconduct evidence is found in personnel records or in some less private sources. Information from personnel records is more reliable as they are subject to privacy. In the Brady v. Maryland case, the Supreme Court ruled that for the defendant to have a fair trial, his/her attorney must be allowed access to exculpatory meant to demonstrate innocence. John Brady and Charles Boblit were accused of robbing and killing (Bass, 121). They were tried separately upon arrest and convicted for murder. However, Brady wanted to avoid death penalty and hence he admitted to have particip.

1. Surname 4
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject: Disclosure of Past Misconduct by Officers
One of the dilemmas that face the courts today is what a
prosecutor should do if he or she is aware of the past
misconduct of a police officer involved in the case. In other
words, is the prosecutor obliged to disclose such past
misconducts or dishonesty by the officer who is involved in a
pending case to the defendant? However, the answer to the
question is that it is not an obligation and the prosecution may
sometimes disclose such issues (Welty, 1). More importantly,
the dishonesty or misconduct of the officer serves as a tool for
impeachment in the ongoing case. The cases of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150 (1972) and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)
are used here to analyze the subject.
Noteworthy, a number of factors determine whether the
misconduct or dishonesty by an officer is important in the
pending case. First, the case must take into consideration how
long ago the dishonesty or misconduct took place. For that
matter, the more recent the misconduct the higher the chances
that it will be considered valuable to the pending case.
Furthermore, the case considers how serious the misconduct by
the officer was. Therefore, more serious acts will obviously be
considered material to the case. In addition, consideration must
be given to how conclusively the case of the misconduct was
established. The information will thus be material only if it is
more likely that the officer engaged in the misconduct. In
certain situations, the dishonesty may have resulted in a fact
pattern similar to the current case. For instance, an officer may

2. falsify a search warrant in both former case and current case
and as such, the information is considered material.
More importantly, it must be considered whether the role of the
officer in question is key to the current case or just peripheral.
In addition, the case must determine whether the defendant in
the case is planning to present his/her case based on the
dishonesty or misconduct of the officer. If an officer plays a
key role in the case, the information concerning misconduct will
be vital. Similarly, if the defendant plans to use the dishonesty
or misconduct information by the officer to present the case, the
information is regarded as important. Finally, the judges
consider whether the misconduct evidence is found in personnel
records or in some less private sources. Information from
personnel records is more reliable as they are subject to privacy.
In the Brady v. Maryland case, the Supreme Court ruled that for
the defendant to have a fair trial, his/her attorney must be
allowed access to exculpatory meant to demonstrate innocence.
John Brady and Charles Boblit were accused of robbing and
killing (Bass, 121). They were tried separately upon arrest and
convicted for murder. However, Brady wanted to avoid death
penalty and hence he admitted to have participated in the event
but claimed that the killing was carried out by Boblit. His
attorney requested for the statements made by Boblit but the
prosecution concealed a statement in which Boblit admitted to
committing murder (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 1963). As
such, the rights of the defendant were violated by intentionally
concealing exculpatory evidence. In Giglio v. United States, the
prosecution failed to disclose that his statement was obtained
through exchange by leniency (Giglio v. United States, 405 U.
S. 150 1972). In both cases, the court determined that the
concealed information was material to the case.
Finally, in the United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976) case,
the defendant was convicted for committing second degree
murder after killing Sewell during a fight using a knife. All the
evidence showed that Augurs was guilty of murder but
concealed the fact that before the murder, Sewell was armed

3. with two knives that the respondent used to stab him several
times (United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 1976). Thereafter,
the respondent’s attorney moved to court to request for a second
trial disclosing that he had discovered that Sewell had a past
criminal record. Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
grants the respondent the right to a fair trial that the prosecution
tried to deprive her of by not disclosing some information.
In conclusion, the requirement by the court for the prosecutor to
disclose certain information concerning past cases has become a
controversial topic in the recent past. However, it is apparent
that the prosecution is only required to disclose certain
information that is considered material to the ongoing case.
Such past misconducts are used to impeach an officer from an
ongoing case. Noteworthy, the period that the misconduct has
taken, the seriousness and whether the respondent plans to use
the information in the case are considered before granting such
orders. In all the three scenarios, it is apparent that the
prosecution denied the respondents their rights to fair trial.
Works Cited
Bass, Victor. Brady v. Maryland and the Prosecutor's Duty to
Disclose. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 40,
No. 1 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 112-140. 1972. The University of
Chicago Law Review.
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)
Welty, Jeff. Must Officers’ Prior Misconduct Be Disclosed in
Discovery? North Carolina Criminal Law. 2012. Retrieved
from https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/must-officers- prior-
misconduct-be-disclosed-in-discovery/

4. NR 506 – Week 2 Replies
Please answer the two following posts as I’m reply to each one.
Each post must have 150 words. In case of using data must
provide reference using within 5 years.
1) Reply to Peer – Jean Latouche
Dr. Adams and class,
My selected topic is about childhood obesity. My topic will
focus on increasing exercise programs in school to encourage
good habits at home. My motive for choosing this topic is
because my specialty is in pediatrics and I would like to
continue to impact the health of the patients in my community
positively. Overweight and obesity can influence children both
physically and mentally (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2018). Children and adolescents who exercise
consistently will lead healthier lives and decrease their chances
of developing chronic health conditions ( CDC, 2018).
Addressing childhood obesity will reduce the number of chronic
health condition such as Diabetes and other cardiac diseases.
Childhood obesity has become an American epidemic (Sahoo,
Sahoo, Choudhury, Sofi, Kumar & Bhadoria, 2015). Childhood
obesity is such a big issue in today’s society due to unhealthy
eating habits, lack of physical activity and stress to name a few
( Sahoo et al., 2015). Obesity is when children have an
overabundance of body fat, and their BMI is in the 95th
percentile or more ( Sahoo et al., 2015). The number of children
today who are considered overweight or obese is at least 32%
(Sahoo et al., 2015). According to a study by the Robert Wood
Johnson foundation children between the ages of 10 and 17 are
obese in South Florida (RWJF, 2018). The model of policy-
making that would be best applied for childhood obesity is
Longest’s Policy Cycle Model. The model for policy-making

5. consists of three phases such as formulation, implementation,
and policy modification (Mason, Gardner, Outlaw & O'Grady,
2016). Each phase comprises of a plan and an event that
produce a result that can impact the next stage. The reason I
chose his model is that I think this phase gives nurses more
opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills to
improve patient outcome.
2) Reply to Instructor – Dr. Adams
Bellow was my post and following is the Instructor question
that needs to be answered.
Hi Dr. Adams and Classmates,
The shortage of primary care physicians can cause a lot
of negative effects on the overall healthcare industry. But more
specifically, this shortage threatens patient’s access to quality
care, therefore, affecting their chances of having a positive
outcome. At the moment, statistics indicate that for every 2,000
patients, there is only a single physician. This means
approximately 13% of patients in the United States of America
are at risk due to lack of adequate medical attention (Flinter,
Hsu, Cromp, Ladden & Wagner, 2017).
I chose this topic simply because, despite the number of
doctors produced by the system, the fact that there are not
enough to serve the entire population is alarming. Additionally,
the fact that there are numerous medical schools in the United
States, this means they should be able to produce enough
physicians to take care of the ever growing population.
It is, therefore, evident that there is a need for new
structures, frameworks, and policies that have to be developed
and implemented in order to address this problem. Therefore, I
believe introducing policies that completely overhaul the
traditional way of doing things will enable the system to
develop towards addressing the physician shortage issue. The
government has made public its ambition of creating universal

6. healthcare, therefore, the only way to address the gap is by
altering the routine that led to this problem in the first place.
Specifically, addressing this issue will require general re-
engineering of the entire healthcare system so that it can focus
on preventive care (Bodenheimer, & Bauer, 2016). When the
community is given information by community health workers,
it tends to live positively thus maintenance of health, which
would also mean fewer patients for the limited number of
physicians to treat. Training of mid-level healthcare providers
would foster the success of this policy because over reliance on
physicians would reduce because some of their roles and
functions will be divided among other relevant clinicians.
References
Bodenheimer, T., & Bauer, L. (2016). Rethinking the primary
care workforce—an expanded role for nurses. New England
Journal of Medicine, 375(11), 1015-1017.
Flinter, M., Hsu, C., Cromp, D., Ladden, M. D., & Wagner, E.
H. (2017). Registered nurses in primary care: Emerging new
roles and contributions to team-based care in high-performing
practices. The Journal of ambulatory care management, 40(4),
287.
Question
Kamila, I understand the problem you mention but what can a
legislator do about it? Are you looking to increase nurse
practitioners to fill the gap?
Please clarify your focus.
Thanks,
Dr. Adams