Document: 405 U.S. 150 92 S.Ct. 763 31 L.Ed.2d 104 John GIGLIO, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 70—29. Argued Oct. 12, 1971. Decided Feb. 24, 1972. Syllabus Petitioner filed a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence contending that Government failed to disclose an alleged promise leniency made its key witness in return his testimony. At hearing this motion, Assistant United States Attorney who presented case grand jury admitted he promised would not be prosecuted if testified before and at trial. The tried was unaware promise. Held: Neither Assistant's lack authority nor failure inform superiors associates is controlling, prosecution's duty present all material fulfilled constitutes violation due process requiring Pp. 153—155. Reversed remanded. James M. LaRossa, New York City, petitioner. Harry R. Sachse, Orleans, La., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 convicted passing forged money orders sentenced five years' imprisonment. While appeal pending Court Appeals, defense counsel indicating had Government. We granted certiorari determine whether disclosed such as require under criteria Napue v. Illinois, 360 264, 79 1173, 3 1217 (1959), Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 10 215 (1963). 2 controversy centers around testimony Robert Taliento, petitioner's coconspirator offense only linking petitioner with crime. Government's showed June 1966 officials Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. teller bank, cashed several orders. Upon questioning by FBI agents, confessed supplying one bank's customer signature cards used Giglio forge $2,300 orders; Taliento then processed these through regular channels bank. related story indicted; thereafter, named but indicted. Trial commenced two years after indictment. testified, identifying instigator scheme. Defense vigorously cross-examined, seeking discredit revealing possible agreements or arrangements prosecutorial leniency: 4 '(Counsel.) Did anybody tell you any time implicated somebody else yourself prosecuted? 5 '(Taliento.) Nobody told me I wouldn't prosecuted. 6 'Q. They might 7 'A. believe still could 8 . 9 Were ever arrested charged anything connection to? Not particular time. 11 To date, have been crime? 12 know of, unless they are going prosecute.' 13 In summation, attorney stated, '(Taliento) received no promises indicted.' 14 issue now arose based evidence. An affidavit part opposition confirms claim assistant, DiPaola,1 prosecuted.2 DiPaola did try District Court, Golden, assistant took over trial, stating assured him immunity Taliento.3 Attorney, Hoey, personally consulted shortly emphasize definitely testify obliged rely 'good judgment conscience Government' prosecuted.4 15 undertake resolve apparent conflict between Attorneys, proceeded theory even it authorized disclosure affected verdict. need concern ourselves differing versions events described assistants their affidavits. heart matter first dealt Taliento—now states cooperated 16 As long ago Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 112, 55 340, 342, L.Ed. 791 (1935), clear deliberate deception court jurors presentation known false incompatible 'rudimentary demands justice.' This reaffirmed Pyle Kansas, 317 213, 63 177, 87 214 (1942). we said, '(t)he same result obtains when State, although soliciting evidence, allows go uncorrected appears.' Id., 269, S.Ct., 1177. Thereafter U.S., 87, 1197, held suppression justifies 'irrespective good faith bad prosecution.' See American Bar Association, Project Standards Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function § 3.11(a). When 'reliability given may well determinative guilt innocence,' nondisclosure affecting credibility falls within general rule. Napue, supra, do not, however, automatically whenever 'a combing prosecutors' files has possibly useful likely changed verdict ..' Keogh, 391 F.2d 138, 148 (CA2 1968). A finding materiality required Brady, 1196, 215. 'the reasonable likelihood .' 271, 1178. 17 circumstances shown record, neither DiPaola's controlling. Moreover, negligence design, responsibility prosecutor. prosecutor's office entity spokesman must attributed, purposes, Restatement (Second) Agency 272. also Discovery Procedure Before 2.1(d). extent places burden large prosecution offices, procedures regulations can established carry insure communication relevant information each every lawyer deals it. 18 Here depended almost entirely Taliento's testimony; without there indictment jury. therefore important case, understanding agreement future entitled 19 For reasons, requirements enunciated other cases cited earlier conviction reversed remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 20 21 POWELL REHNQUIST consideration decision case. During oral argument stated staff 1969 remained until recently. reads, part, follows: 'It agreed ROBERT EDWARD TALIENTO Grand Jury Government, It understood he, TALIENTO, sign Waiver Immunity from Jury, eventually defendant, JOHN prosecuted.' Golden's 'Mr. advised indicted because very young occurrence obviously overreached defendant Giglio.' Hoey affidavit, standing alone, contains least implication reward cooperation witness, hence tends confirm rather than refute existence some leniency.

Category: 3