There are 3 parts to this assignment each part needs a small paragraph discussing about each assignment.)
Duty to Disclose CJ 9 D
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).
In your main post:
·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.
Jury VerdictsCJ 9 D
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.
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 your main post:
·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.
Litigation Against Law Enforcement OfficialsCJ 10 D
Civil liability may occur under tort law in several circumstances. For instance, a police officer will be found liable when what happened can be blamed solely on the officer and on nobody else and transcends negligence. Additionally, a supervisor can be held liable when the supervisor is involved in the act or when what happened can be linked to one or all of the seven areas of supervisor negligence. Finally, a city or county is considered liable when what happened was the result of policy or custom.
Recent cases have addressed the issue of liability regarding both police officers’ individual liability as well as the potential civil liability of government entities. Two such cases are Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) and Brosseau v. Haugen (2004).
For this discussion, review Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Brosseau v. Haugen, considering that both of these cases could be said to favor law enforcement.
In your main post:
·Explain potential sources of tort liability and whether they would be individual and/or departmental.
·Articulate adjustments at the officer and departmental levels to avoid civil liability.
·Describe the overall impact of the sources of tort liability on the field of criminal justice.