Brady v. Maryland
Citation: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) No. 490 (83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215)
After Supreme Court sentences him to the death penalty, Maryland Court of Appeals denies petitioner a new trial of guilt or not guilt after suppression of evidence by prosecution. But accepts a new trial to review punishment.
Brief Fact Summary: Petitioner, John L. Brady and his companion, Charles Boblit, are convicted of first-degree murder and are given the death penalty. Brady admits participating in the crime but argues that his companion Boblit did all the killing. Brady’s sentence was still held. Petitioner’s counsel find out that the Prosecution counsel suppressed evidence where Boblit accepted to doing the killing. Brady appealed for a new trial, in order to his guiltiness be reviewed. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied a new trial to review his guilt, but accepted to review his punishment.
Synopsis of Rule of Law: Prosecutor improperly or intentionally hiding evidence that he or she is legally obligated to show the defense, also known as Suppression of Evidence, is a violation of the Due Process Clause and thus, a violation of the 5th amendment of the Constitution.
Facts: John Brady was convicted to the death sentence despite his insistence that, while he was involved in the act, he did not commit the murder himself. However, another man, Donald Boblit, was tried for the same murder, and also found guilty. In the course of that trial, the prosecution had acquired a written statement from Boblit confessing to the murder. The prosecution withheld this evidence during Brady’s trial, despite the defense’s request for Boblit’s written statements, and as a result, Brady was found guilty and received the death sentence. After this came to the attention of Brady’s attorney, he appealed for post-conviction relief from the sentence because of what happened. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, affirming the Maryland Court of Appeals, ruled that even though the withheld evidence did not completely clear Brady, it would have served to reduce his sentence to life imprisonment.
Issue: Did court act properly when it withheld evidence that could be favorable to Brady or
