The document discusses the United States Supreme Court's role and insights into three key cases regarding prosecutorial disclosure: Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and United States v. Agurs, emphasizing the importance of transparency for fair trials. It highlights the repeated failures of prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to defendants, leading to new trials based on violations of due process rights. Additionally, the document addresses the disciplinary actions against a police officer for misconduct and stresses the necessity of maintaining officer credibility due to the implications for justice in legal proceedings.

1. [Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
1
Running Head: Disciplinary Assignment
CJUS 520- Disciplinary Assignment
Jasonus Tillery
Liberty University
CJUS 520- Disciplinary Assignment-Part 1
The United States Supreme Court is the absolute highest
court in the country. It generally hears cases that involve issues
of federal law. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction
over the federal and state courts (Supreme Court of the United
States, 2013). When a case is referred to the Supreme Court,
the decision that is derived is final because there is no other
court to appeal to. Generally, when a case is appealed to the
Supreme Court, it usually means that there were issues or
controversy involved in the cases in the State or Federal Court.

2. There are three cases that were tried at the Supreme Court level
that are of particular interest to this class: Brady vs. Maryland
(1963), Giglio vs. United States (1972), and United States vs.
Agurs (1976). Each of these cases presented issues, which will
be discussed below.
Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
In the Brady vs. Maryland case, Brady the defendant and
his companion were convicted of first-degree murder and were
sentenced to death. During the trial, Brady admitted to being at
the crime scene and participating in the crime, but he stated that
his companion was the one who actually committed the murder.
Brady’s attorney did not contest the fact that Brady was guilty,
he or she only pleaded with the jury to not return with a capital
punishment verdict. The defendant’s lawyer however, was not
privy to the fact that Brady’s companion had admitted to
murdering the victim alone. Prior to the start of the trial, the
defendant’s attorney requested to see all the evidence that the
prosecutors had in their possession. However, the prosecutors
failed to disclose Brady’s companion’s confession. Brady’s
attorney was not aware of the confession until after his client’s
trial. At that point, Brady had already been convicted and
sentenced (Hooper & Thorpe, 2007). The prosecutor is required
by law to disclose to the defense any evidence that is favorable
to the defendant. Failure to do so denies the defendant to due
process of the law. Therefore, there had to be a new trial, but
not to determine guilt, rather than to determine Brady’s
punishment. Brady had already confessed to his participation in
the crime, so the sentence of death was what had to be re-tried.
Although many would disagree with the fact that the prosecutor
has to disclose information favorable to the defendant, it is still
the law. Therefore, violating this law results in a violation of
the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.
Giglio vs. United States vs. 150 (1972)
In this case, the defendant Giglio was being prosecuted for
forging $2300 in money orders, which at the time was a
significant amount of money. The controversy in this case

3. derived from the testimony of Giglio’s Co-conspirator Robert
Taliento. Taliento was the only witness that the prosecution had
that linked Giglio to the crime. Taliento struck a deal with the
U.S. Attorney, which stated that if he testified against Giglio he
himself would not be prosecuted. He testified that while he was
a teller at a bank, he would provide customer’s signature cards
to Giglio. Giglio in turn took the signature cards and forged
$2300 worth of money orders. Giglio’s trial did not commence
until two years later (U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2013). He
was sentenced to five years in prison. While Giglio was waiting
for appeal his attorneys discovered the government failed to
disclose the fact that Taliento was promised immunity in
exchange for his testimony. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari to determine if the evidence withheld required a new
trial under the due process criteria that had been enunciated in
the Brady vs. Maryland trial, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The court
held that disclosing pertinent information was the responsibility
of the prosecutor and failure to do so was a violation of Giglio’s
Fifth Amendment rights (U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2013).
The court had to rule that due process required Giglio to have a
new trial (U.S. Supreme Court Center, 2013). Once again one
can see the importance of full disclosure of the prosecutor to the
defense. Although full disclosure may not have made a
difference in the outcome of the trial, it is still required and
failure to do so is a violation of due process.
United States vs. Agurs (1976)
In the United States vs. Agurs, Agurs, the defendant was
on trial for second-degree murder for killing her estranged
husband with a knife during a domestic dispute. The victim had
been stabbed repeatedly and the accused was uninjured. The
defendant claimed that she killed her husband in self-defense.
Sewell had previous charges of assault and carrying a deadly
weapon, however, the prosecutor failed to disclose this to
Agur’s attorney. Once the defense discovered this information,
they motioned for a new trial, but it was denied by the district
court on the grounds that Sewell’s criminal record was not

4. relevant. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling because
failure to disclose this information did not allow for a fair trial
and violated the due process clause. The case was re-tried.
In all three cases the prosecution failed to disclose
significant information to the defense that would allow the
defendants to a fair trial. One would think that it is the
responsibility of the defense to find out all the pertinent
information that will aid in their client’s defense. However,
according to the law, any information discovered by the
prosecutor or defense that could have a significant outcome on
the verdict must be disclosed. Failure to do so can result in new
trials, reversals, etc. as seen in the three trials above.
Professional Memorandum
It was brought to my attention by my Deputy Chief of
Police that Officer John Smith is being investigated for the use
of pornographic websites while on duty. When approached
about the illegal use of the sites on the agency computer, the
officer denied the allegations. Upon further investigation, it
was determined that the officer used his own username and
password on the agency computer. Once this information was
brought forth, Officer Smith finally admitted his transgression
and apologized stating that it would never happen again. The
officer has only had one discipline in his 15 years at the agency.
The discipline was over 10 years ago and there is no correlation
to what he currently admitted to doing. As a law enforcement
officer, it is imperative that one is truthful and credible at all
times. An officer’s credibility is essential to the agency’s
ability to carry out its missions (Judge, 2005). Officers are
required to handled privileged information, secure information,
handle drugs, money, process crime scenes, maintain
confidential information, and guns (Judge, 2005). Therefore, an
officer’s word and credibility has to be almost flawless.
Besides the fact that they have to handle very sensitive and
crucial information, law enforcement officers must be honest
and truthful at all times in the event that they have to testify in

5. the court of law.
There are five Supreme Court cases that make it imperative
that the officers are trustworthy, honest, and uphold the law at
all costs. In the case of Brady vs. Maryland, suppression of
evidence by the prosecution led the court to rule in favor of the
defendant. This case marked the beginning of the trend of the
prosecutors divulging any information that they came across
that could help the defense (Hooper & Thorpe, 2007).
In the Giglio vs. United States case, the prosecutor had
promised the co-conspirator he would not prosecute him in
exchange for his testimony. The court ruled in favor of Giglio
due to the fact that there was non-disclosure of evidence and
that affects the credibility of the prosecution. Once again the
theme of non-disclosure was highlighted in a case (U.S.
Supreme Court Center, 2013).
The defendant Agurs, (in the United States vs. Agurs case) due
process rights’ were violated because the prosecutor failed to
disclose that Agur’s victim had a history of weapons possession
and assault pleas. Since Agurs claimed that she murdered the
victim in self-defense, leaving out the fact that the victim had a
violent history definitely could have had an effect on the
verdict.
The United States vs. Bagley was the case that set the
precedence that impeachment of evidence must be disclosed to
the defense. The thought process was the same as other
information that had to be disclosed: if material evidence is
given to the defense attorney, then the information could
possibly lead to a different verdict.
The last Supreme Court case that makes it imperative that law
enforcement officers be trustworthy, honest, and upholds the
law at all costs, is the Kyles vs. Whitley case. This case set the
precedence for making it the prosecutor’s duty to learn any
favorable evidence for the defense regarding those acting on the
government’s behalf, including the police.
The Supreme Court decisions in all 5 of the cases above creates
a responsibility for the prosecutor to learn of and disclose of

6. any information that could discredit the case’s witnesses,
especially law enforcement officers. If a law enforcement
officer is a witness in any case, the prosecutor must rely on that
officer’s agency to inform him or her of any possible credibility
issues that the officer has had in official matters (Serpas
&Hagar, 2010). If the police officer has had any misconduct
that involves dishonesty, this could definitely destroy his or her
credibility in court, as the prosecutor must disclose this
information to the defense.
In light of the above information, I have no choice but to
terminate Officer Smith. He not only violated company policy
by using the agency computer to visit pornographic websites
while on the clock, but when questioned about the offense, he
repeatedly lied about what he had done. Officer Smith has
broken our trust in him as an officer. At this point, I am also
questioning if he has been dishonest in other aspects of his job.
If we keep him on the force, this incidence will have to be
documented in great detail. There will be permanent evidence
that he was dishonest during an official police investigation.
Therefore, if Officer Smith ever has to testify in court of law,
we would have to divulge this information to the prosecutor
who would then have to divulge the information to the defense
attorney. In any case that Officer Smith would have to testify
in, his credibility would be questioned. This could result in the
jury siding with the defendant in the cases in which he is
involved. I cannot risk the possibility of justice not being
served to criminals due to a dishonest mistake of one officer.
Hopefully, Officer Smith’s termination will be an example to all
the other officers. They must know the importance of being
honest and credible. Anything less will cause them to lose their
job.

7. References
Hooper, L., & Thorpe, S. (2007, May 31). Brady vs. Maryland
Material in the United
States District Courts: Rules Orders and Policies.
Judge, Lisa A. (November 2005). Disclosing Officer
Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a
Liars Squad Coming to Your Town?. The Police Chief, 72(11).
Serpas, Ronal, & Hagar, Michael. (August 2010). The
Untruthful Employee: Is
Termination the Only Response?. The Police Chief,
LXXVII(8).
Supreme Court of the United States. (2013, March). Supreme
Court Governmet.
Retrieved Feburary 2, 2017, from www.supremecourt.gov.
U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2013, April 5). Brady vs Maryland
373 U.S> 83 (1963).
U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2013, April 5). Giglio vs. United
States vs 150 (1972).
U.S. Supreme Court Center. (2013, April 4). United States vs.
Agurs (1976).

8. CJUS 520
Disciplinary Assignment Part 2 Instructions
This is a continuation of the Disciplinary Assignment Part 1.
Students read the following journal articles found in the
Reading and Study section of Module/Week 7.
Judge, Lisa A. (November 2005). Disclosing Officer
Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liars Squad Coming to Your
Town?. The Police Chief, 72(11).
Serpas, Ronal, & Hagar, Michael. (August 2010). The
Untruthful Employee: Is Termination the Only Response?. The
Police Chief, LXXVII(8).
Copyrights held by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
USA.
Instructions:
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.
With this in mind, you are the Chief of Police of a municipality.
Your Deputy Chief of Police advises you that one of your

9. officers was investigated for inappropriate use of one of the
computers in the patrol division. As a result of this internal
investigation, it was determined that the officer used this
computer to search pornographic web sites. When confronted
with this allegation, the officer denied any knowledge of this
incident. Upon further investigation, the computer crimes
analyst determined that the officer’s logon password was used
to enter the unauthorized web sites. The officer then admitted to
his wrongdoing and stated it would never happen again. This
officer has been with your organization for 15 years, and the
only other disciplinary action taken against him was for being
involved in an at fault traffic accident 10 years ago. As the
Chief of Police, you must decide how you will handle this
situation?
Write a professional memorandum outlining and explaining how
you will handle this situation. What recommendations would
you make?
Use the references listed below to assist and support you in your
decision.
You must have at least 2.5 pages and should attach these new
pages to Part 1, for a total of 5 pages. Therefore, in
Module/Week 7 you will submit the entire Disciplinary
Assignment with a title page, and a reference page citing the
cases you used, and any outside references.
· 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)
· Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995)
· United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985)

10. The Disciplinary Assignment Part 2 is to be submitted by 11:59
p.m. (ET) on Sunday of Module 7.
Page 1 of 1
CJUS 520
Student Name:
Criterion
Point Value
Points Possible
Points given &
instructor comments
All key components of the question are answered in the paper
18
100
Clear, logical flow to paper
18
Major points are stated clearly
18
Major points are supported by the following:
1. lecture material or Scripture
2. good examples (pertinent conceptual or personal examples
are acceptable),
3. thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, comparing/contrasting concepts)

11. 20
Spelling, grammar & APA
16
Sufficient length (2.5 pages), & title page
10
Disciplinary Assignment Part 2 Grading Rubric
Total Points: _____/100