Brady v. Maryland
| Case Name | Brady v. Maryland |
| Inherited Rule | The suppression of the undisclosed confession/evidence by the prosecution before the trial was a violation of the Due Process Clause provided in the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution.(Brady v. Maryland, 1963). |
| Relevant Facts | Before the trial (which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced and the ruling was affirmed) Brad’s counsel had requested the prosecution to give him a chance to examine Boblit’s extrajudicial statements. Some of the statements were provided however, one the statements in which Boblit admitted the actual homicide, was not disclosed by the prosecution and the petitioners counsel were not aware of it until their client was already convicted and sentenced after the trial (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). |
| New Information about the Rule | Non disclosure of the information by the prosecution to the defense before the trial violates the due process as provided by the fourteenth amendment in the constitution and this calls for unfair trial by the court to the alleged criminal despite whether the evidence is a material which prompts either guilt or punishment upon the alleged criminal, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith provided by the prosecution.(Brady v. Maryland, 1963). |
| Decision | Brady the petitioner, who was convicted of first degree murder, was awarded a new trial in question of punishment but not guilt (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). |
| Processed Rule | The suppression of the undisclosed confession/evidence by the prosecution before the trial was a violation of the Due Process Clause provided in the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution. This calls for unfair trial on the petitioner’s front, this is whether the evidence is a material that prompts either guilt or punishment upon the alleged criminal, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith provided by the prosecution Any case in any court should be about serving justice and not only about victory. by the court to the alleged criminal despite (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). |