Brady v. Maryland
Heading: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Certiorari to the court of Applels of Maryland. No. 490. Decided on May 13, 1963. Petitioner claims he was denied due process of law after he confessed to helping in a crime that ended in muder, but was never shown evidence that his partner had confessed to the actual killing until after he was convicted.
Procedural History: One case that is mentioned during the Brady trial is the Mooney v. Hola ham case in which the principle is " not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecuted but a avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any ...view middle of the document...
The Due Process Claise of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated according to the Appellee by suppressing evidence. The petitioner requested a new trial in which the question of punishment would be viewed.
Issue: the issue is this case is whether or not the prosecutor violated the petitioner's rights by suppressing the statement that proved another person had committed the actual murder. The fourteenth amendment due process clause in the rights of the petitioner that may have been violated. Whether or not the petitioner was decided a constitutional right when his new trial was restricted to questions of punishment.
Holding: petition was not denied a federal constitutional right when his new trial was restricted to the question of the punishment.
Decision: the judgement was affirmed. The court of appeals agreed with Brady and the fact that his fourteenth amendment rights were violated.
Rule: the general rule of law is this case "Final judgement in a criminal case means sentence the sentence is the judgement."
Reasoning: the court a appeals affirmed the case because the confirmed that the suppression of evidence from the prosecutor was in fact a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court relied on two decisions when making their final decision the court looked at almeida v. Baldi and thompson v. Dye which the court agrees state the correct constitutional rule.
Dissenting Opinions: Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Black do not agree with the court of the Appeals decision. According to these two men the "Court of Appeals did not in terms address itself to the equal protection question" the way the court should have handled it according to these two men is to remand the case for further consideration in light of the constitutional principles in this case.