PART 1
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process is violated when the prosecution suppresses evidence favorable to an accused upon request where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. The Brady Rule on Disclosure of Evidence to the Accused purports that the prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant. Many cases have since been decided that provide additional insight and clarification to this rule, such as United States v. Agurs (1976), United States v. Bagley (1985), Kyles v. Whitley (1995), and Strickler v. Greene (1999).
Instructions
In this discussion post, address the following in 250-300:
- Analyze the Brady rule in the context of the Court’s rationale for this decision from a criminal justice practitioner standpoint.
- Explain how the Court interpreted and refined the Brady rule in one of its subsequent cases— United States v. Agurs, United States v. Bagley, Kyles v. Whitley, or Strickler v. Greene.
- Explore how the Court’s interpretation in your selected case, following Brady, impacts the application of the rule.
PLEASE TITLE EACH PARAGRAPH WITH THE APPROPRIATE BULLET/QUESTION. THERE ARE 4 BULLETS, SO THERE SHOULD BE 3 PARAGRAPHS.
PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE A REFERENCE PAGE. INCLUDE THE REFERENCES AT THE END OF EACH DISCUSSION.
PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS!!
PART 2
In our criminal justice system, defendants have the right to a trial by jury. This right is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, specifically, the 6th Amendment. While the Constitution does set forth requirements as to the size of the jury, it does not require that the jury reach a unanimous verdict. A non-unanimous verdict is a verdict by a jury that is not the result of a unanimous vote. In Apodaca v. Oregon, the Supreme Court held that a 10-to-2 vote for conviction is constitutional. In Johnson v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that a 9-to-3 vote for conviction was constitutional. Given the defendant’s right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of requirement for a unanimous verdict may beg the question as to whether it is appropriate to allow majority verdicts rather than unanimous verdicts.
Instructions
For this discussion, consider the fact that the Supreme Court has discarded the argument that a less-than-unanimous verdict violates the reasonable doubt standard, stating that the term reasonable doubt refers to the individual juror and not the entire jury.
In this post, address the following in 250-300 words:
- Explore whether all criminal trials should require unanimous verdicts, using a related case as the basis for your position.
- Articulate two practical issues that might arise under unanimous verdict requirements.
- Describe the implications of non-unanimous jury verdicts as a criminal justice professional.
PLEASE TITLE EACH PARAGRAPH WITH THE APPROPRIATE BULLET/QUESTION. THERE ARE 4 BULLETS, SO THERE SHOULD BE 3 PARAGRAPHS.
PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE A REFERENCE PAGE. INCLUDE THE REFERENCES AT THE END OF EACH DISCUSSION.
PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS!!
