Giglio v. United States
405 U.S. 150 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The prosecution's failure to disclose evidence of any understanding or agreement as to future prosecution of a key government witness violates the Due Process Clause, regardless of whether the trial prosecutor knew about the agreement, as such information is material to the witness's credibility.
Facts:
- Robert Taliento, a bank teller, confessed to FBI agents that he had assisted John Giglio in a scheme to forge and cash money orders.
- Assistant U.S. Attorney DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury, promised Taliento that he would not be prosecuted if he testified against Giglio.
- Based largely on Taliento's grand jury testimony, Giglio was indicted for passing forged money orders; Taliento was named as a co-conspirator but was not indicted.
- At Giglio's trial, Taliento was the government's only witness linking Giglio to the crime.
- During cross-examination at trial, Taliento denied that he had been told he would not be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony.
Procedural Posture:
- Giglio was convicted in the U.S. District Court of passing forged money orders.
- Giglio appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- While the appeal was pending, defense counsel discovered evidence of a promise of non-prosecution made to the government's key witness, Robert Taliento.
- Giglio filed a motion for a new trial in the District Court based on this newly discovered evidence.
- The District Court denied the motion for a new trial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Giglio's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's failure to disclose a promise of leniency made to its key witness, whose testimony is crucial for conviction, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes. The government's failure to disclose a promise of leniency made to its key witness violates the Due Process Clause. Citing Napue v. Illinois, the Court held that when the reliability of a witness is determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting that witness's credibility falls under the rule established in Brady v. Maryland. Such evidence is material, and its suppression justifies a new trial if the undisclosed evidence could in any reasonable likelihood have affected the jury's judgment. The Court established that the prosecutor's office is a single entity, meaning knowledge of a promise by one attorney is imputed to the entire office, regardless of the trial prosecutor's personal knowledge or good faith. Because Taliento's testimony was central to the government's case, his credibility was a critical issue, and the jury was entitled to know about the promise of non-prosecution to properly evaluate his testimony.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of the Brady rule, which requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence. Giglio clarifies that this duty extends to disclosing material evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of a government witness. The decision establishes the crucial principle of imputed knowledge within a prosecutor's office, holding the entire office responsible for disclosures, thereby preventing prosecutors from claiming ignorance of promises made by colleagues. This creates a procedural burden on prosecution offices to ensure internal communication about any agreements made with witnesses, reinforcing the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Unlock the full brief for Giglio v. United States