Document: 373 U.S. 83 S.Ct. 1194 10 L.Ed.2d 215 John L. BRADY, Petitioner,v.STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 490. Argued March 18 and 19, 1963. Decided May 13, E. Clinton Bamberger, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for petitioner. Thomas W. Jamison, III, respondent. Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced BRENNAN. 1 Petitioner a companion, Boblit, were found guilty murder in first degree sentenced to death, their convictions being affirmed Appeals Maryland. 220 Md. 454, 154 A.2d 434. Their trials separate, petitioner tried first. At his trial Brady took stand admitted participation crime, but he claimed that Boblit did actual killing. And, summation jury, Brady's counsel conceded was degree, asking only jury return verdict 'without capital punishment.' Prior petitioner's had requested prosecution allow him examine Boblit's extrajudicial statements. Several those statements shown him; one dated July 9, 1958, which homicide, withheld not come notice until after been tried, convicted, sentenced, conviction affirmed. 2 moved court new based on newly discovered evidence suppressed prosecution. Petitioner's appeal from denial motion dismissed without prejudice relief under Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act. 222 442, 160 912. The petition post-conviction court; held suppression denied due process law remanded case retrial question punishment, guilt. 226 422, 174 167. is here certiorari, 371 812, 56, 9 54.1 3 crime committed perpetration robbery. Punishment life imprisonment or empowered restrict punishment addition words Md.Ann.Code, 1957, Art. 27, § 413. In Maryland, reason state constitution, criminal are 'the Judges Law, as well fact.' XV, 5. presented whether federal right when restricted punishment. 4 We agree with this confession violation Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. relied main two decisions Third Circuit Appeals—United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi, 195 F.2d 815, 33 A.L.R.2d 1407, United Thompson Dye, 221 763—which, we agree, correct constitutional rule. 5 This ruling an extension Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 112, 55 340, 342, 79 L.Ed. 791, where ruled what nondisclosure prosecutor violates process: 6 'It requirement cannot be deemed satisfied mere hearing if has contrived through pretense truth used means depriving defendant liberty deliberate deception presentation testimony known perjured. Such contrivance procure inconsistent rudimentary demands justice obtaining like result intimidation.' 7 Pyle Kansas, 317 213, 215—216, 63 177, 178, 87 214, phrased rule broader terms: 8 'Petitioner's papers inexpertly drawn, they do set forth allegations resulted perjured testimony, knowingly State authorities obtain conviction, same favorable him. These sufficiently charge deprivation rights guaranteed Federal Constitution, and, proven, would entitle release present custody. 791.' Baldi construed statement Kansas mean 'suppression favorable' accused itself sufficient amount process. F.2d, at 820. Napue Illinois, 360 264, 269, 1173, 1217, extended test formulated Holohan said: 'The obtains State, although soliciting false evidence, allows it go uncorrected appears.' And see Alcorta Texas, 355 28, 78 9; Wilde Wyoming, 362 607, 80 900, 985. Cf. Durley Mayo, 351 277, 285, 76 806, 811, 100 1178 (dissenting opinion). now hold upon request material either guilt irrespective good faith bad principle society misdeeds avoidance unfair accused. Society wins convicted fair; our system administration suffers any treated unfairly. An inscription walls Department states proposition candidly domain: its point whenever done citizens courts.'2 A withholds demand which, made available, tend exculpate reduce penalty helps shape bears heavily defendant. That casts role architect proceeding does comport standards justice, even though, case, action guile,' use Appeals. 427, A.2d, 169. 11 remains justification stated: 12 'There considerable doubt how much undisclosed have before jury. It clearly implicated who wanted strangle victim, Brooks. according statement, also favored killing him, shooting. put ourselves place assume views matter hands twisted shirt about victim's neck. * (I)t 'too dogmatic' us say attached significance considering Brady. 13 'Not some doubt, conclude withholding particular prejudicial 14 appellant's sole claim goes imposed. If nothing could reduced appellant offense below degree. We, therefore, no occasion retry issue.' 429—430, 171. (Italics added.) jurisdiction judge law, different presented. But since is, can 'below degree'? If, juries cases determine admissibility such issue innocence guilt, seem foreclosed. 15 Maryland's provision making Law' precisely seems say.3 status reviewed recently Giles 229 370, 183 359, dismissed, 372 767, 1102, several exceptions, added statute carved out judicial construction, reviewed. One here, 'Trial courts always passed still pass may consider accused.' 383, p. 365. cited make up long line going back nearly century. Wheeler 42 563, 570, stated instructions advisory only, 'except regard questions shall considered evidence.' 'having right, follows course, prevent arguing against instruction.' Bell 57 108, 120. Beard 71 275, 280, 17 A. 1044, 1045, L.R.A. 675; Dick 107 11, 21, 68 286, 290. Vogel 163 267, 162 705. 16 usually walk treacherous ground explore law,4 courts, agencies, legislatures final expositors regime. But, read decisions, court, passes 'admissibility evidence' pertinent supra. unanimous said 'could degree.' sporting theory might trial, judge's admissible flouted just then stricken record.5 raise strategy dignity deprival chance bifurcated (cf. Williams New York, 337 241, 69 1079, 93 1337) denies Equal Protection Affirmed. Separate opinion WHITE. 19 1. declared, exculpatory process' citing Constitution clause.* therefore sure invoked thus party aggrieved portion judgment, bring desired so. See York City Central Savings Bank, 306 661, 59 790, 1058; Minnesota National Tea Co., 309 551, 60 676, 84 920. event, there cross-petiton nor challenged correctness called requirements my view, should reach decides. certainly suggested, question, assuming finding wants decided remains, namely, denying deprives equal protection. There deal Court, cf. Hood, 327 678, 66 773, 90 939, wholly aside involving evidence. majority makes unmistakably clear. Before dealing says, After discussing length disposing terms says before: 20 result, discussion advisory. 21 2. event Court's advice substantially beyond holding below. I employ more confining language cast form broad discovery. Instead, leave task, least new, rule-making legislative full consideration legislators, bench, bar. 22 3. concur disposition protection argument. 23 HARLAN, whom BLACK joins, dissenting. 24 think presents single question: order granting limited violate Amendment protection?1 affirmative answer required original trial. indeed clear implication opinion. 25 however, holds infringed because considers Appeals' opinion, other fact,' establishing 26 assurance. easily, perhaps indicating limitation followed concept power, 645G Act, Md.Code, 27 (1960 Cum.Supp.) Rule 870 Rules Procedure, fashion appropriate meeting peculiar circumstances case,2 rather than view relevant 430, interpretation fortified earlier general third-party confessions, falls short saying anything dispositive crucial here. 427—429, 170.3 Nor find (ante, 89) vel non None these suggests 'overrule' relating Indeed happens fact undertakes very example, charged 'in analysis judges both facts, entirely jury's responsibility.' (Emphasis 28 Moreover, uncertainty score compounded State's acknowledgment oral argument guilt.4 29 proper critical underlying address properly resolve juncture. course vacate judgment remand further light governing outset Neither decision 'final judgment' within meaning U.S.C. 1257(3), attack reviewability lower court's successfully maintained. For 'Final sentence. sentence (Berman States, 302 211, 212, 58 164, 166, 82 204) applied entitles seriously prejudiced 'that serious unsettled question' (Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 541, 547, 1221, 1226, 1528) 'is fundamental conduct case' (United General Motors 323 373, 377, 65 357, 89 311). 'independent of, unaffected by' (Radio Station WOW Johnson, 326 120, 126, 1475, 1479, 2092) transpire receive death mooted proceeding. Largent 318 418, 421—422, 667, 668—669, 873. Local 438 Const. Laborers' Union Curry, 542, 549, 531, 536, 514. Judge Simon Sobeloff Solicitor idea Judicial Conference Fourth June 29, 1954: neutral, advocate; advocate client whose business merely prevail instant case. My client's chief achieve victory establish justice. constantly reminded classic penned illustrious predecessors, Frederick William Lehmann, Government courts.' Dennis, Antique Constitutional Thorn, 92 U. Pa.L.Rev. 34, 39, 43; Prescott, Juries Law: Should Practice Continued, Md.St.Bar Assn.Rept. 246, 253 254. unhappy incident recent vintage Oklahoma Packing Co. Gas & Electric 4, 215, 447, 537, replaced 703. 'In confessions hybrid situation exists. duty proof, taken presence freely voluntarily made, etc., admissible. admitted, entitled hear proof surrounding obtention, better weight sufficiency. admits them clothes presumption purposes true made. However, change mind strike record. Does mind?' 39. supra, 120; 272, A., 706 707. Md.Const., 23; Home Utilities Inc., Revere Copper Brass, 209 610, 122 109; Raymond Szydlouski, 192 602, 285; County Com'rs Anne Arundel English, 182 514, 35 135, 150 A.L.R. 842; Oursler Tawes, 178 471, 763. Brother WHITE necessity deciding deals pp. 86—88 Section provides part: 'If finds favor petitioner, enter respect former proceedings, supplementary orders rearraignment, retrial, custody, bail, discharge, correction sentence, matters necessary proper.' 'will affirm reverse taken, direct manner modified, changed amended.' noteworthy indicate limiting way authority Day 196 384, 729. defendants jointly felony murder. Each participating homicide. On attacked severance, argued neither harmed joint admission amounted Nevertheless abuse discretion ordered separate all issues. response Bench offered purposes, colloquy, been, yes.'

Category: 0