Giglio v. United States
Encyclopedia
Giglio v. United States, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process
, requiring a new trial. This is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland
, requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel. As a result of this case, the term Giglio material is sometimes used to refer to any information pertaining to deals that witnesses in a criminal case may have entered into with the government.
s. When he was questioned by the FBI, Taliento confessed that he had supplied Giglio, the petitioner, with signature
cards from one of the bank's customers, which Giglio used to forge $2,300 in money orders. Taliento then processed the forged money orders through the bank.
An affidavit indicated that Assistant U.S. Attorney DiPaolo struck a deal with Taliento, promising that he would not be prosecuted for the crime if he testified against Giglio. Taliento testified before a grand jury
, resulting in Giglio's indictment
.
Giglio's trial, two years after the indictment, was prosecuted by a different prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Golden. DiPaolo did not inform Golden of the deal struck with Taliento, and Taliento assured Golden prior to the commencement of the trial that no such deal had been made. In addition, U.S. Attorney Hoey personally consulted with both Taliento and Taliento's attorney prior to trial, emphasizing that Talianeto would definitely be prosecuted if he did not testify, but that if he did testify, whether he was prosecuted would depend on the "good judgment and conscience of the Government."
At trial, Taliento testified "Nobody told me I wouldn't be prosecuted" and "I believe I still could be prosecuted." The trial court did not attempt to reconcile the apparent conflict between DiPaola and Golden. It proceeded on the premise that even if DiPaola had made such a promise it was not authorized, and its disclosure to the jury would not have affected the verdict.
Giglio was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. While his appeal was pending, his counsel discovered evidence of the government's discussions with Taliento. The Supreme Court granted certiorari
to determine whether the evidence that was not disclosed required a new trial under the due process
criteria that had been enunciated in Napue v. Illinois, and Brady v. Maryland
, .
In Giglio's case, the Court found that neither DiPaola's authority nor his failure to inform his superior Hoey or his associate Golden was controlling. The Court held that, regardless of whether the failure to disclose was intentional or negligent, disclosing the information remained the responsibility of the prosecutor in its position as spokesman for the government; and that a promise made by one attorney on the case must be attributed to the government.
The Court noted that the government's case relied almost entirely on Taliento's testimony, and without it, there could have been no indictment, and no evidence to take to a jury. The Court found that this made Taliento's credibility an important issue; any evidence of an agreement or understanding with respect to Taliento's future prosecution was relevant to his credibility, and the jury was entitled to know about it. The Court held that due process required that Giglio be granted a new trial, and reversed and remanded.
Substantive due process
Substantive due process is one of the theories of law through which courts enforce limits on legislative and executive powers and authority...
, requiring a new trial. This is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United...
, requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel. As a result of this case, the term Giglio material is sometimes used to refer to any information pertaining to deals that witnesses in a criminal case may have entered into with the government.
Facts
In June 1966, bank officials at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. discovered that a teller at the bank named Taliento had cashed several forged money orderMoney order
A money order is a payment order for a pre-specified amount of money. Because it is required that the funds be prepaid for the amount shown on it, it is a more trusted method of payment than a cheque.-History of money orders:...
s. When he was questioned by the FBI, Taliento confessed that he had supplied Giglio, the petitioner, with signature
Signature
A signature is a handwritten depiction of someone's name, nickname, or even a simple "X" that a person writes on documents as a proof of identity and intent. The writer of a signature is a signatory. Similar to a handwritten signature, a signature work describes the work as readily identifying...
cards from one of the bank's customers, which Giglio used to forge $2,300 in money orders. Taliento then processed the forged money orders through the bank.
An affidavit indicated that Assistant U.S. Attorney DiPaolo struck a deal with Taliento, promising that he would not be prosecuted for the crime if he testified against Giglio. Taliento testified before a grand jury
Grand jury
A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will issue. Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing...
, resulting in Giglio's indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
.
Giglio's trial, two years after the indictment, was prosecuted by a different prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Golden. DiPaolo did not inform Golden of the deal struck with Taliento, and Taliento assured Golden prior to the commencement of the trial that no such deal had been made. In addition, U.S. Attorney Hoey personally consulted with both Taliento and Taliento's attorney prior to trial, emphasizing that Talianeto would definitely be prosecuted if he did not testify, but that if he did testify, whether he was prosecuted would depend on the "good judgment and conscience of the Government."
At trial, Taliento testified "Nobody told me I wouldn't be prosecuted" and "I believe I still could be prosecuted." The trial court did not attempt to reconcile the apparent conflict between DiPaola and Golden. It proceeded on the premise that even if DiPaola had made such a promise it was not authorized, and its disclosure to the jury would not have affected the verdict.
Giglio was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. While his appeal was pending, his counsel discovered evidence of the government's discussions with Taliento. The Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
to determine whether the evidence that was not disclosed required a new trial under the due process
Substantive due process
Substantive due process is one of the theories of law through which courts enforce limits on legislative and executive powers and authority...
criteria that had been enunciated in Napue v. Illinois, and Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United...
, .
Holding
The Supreme Court began its analysis by noting that deliberately deceiving the trial court and jury by presenting evidence known to be false had been held to be incompatible with the "rudimentary demands of justice" as early as Mooney v. Holohan, . In Napue, the Court had held that the same result occurs "when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material evidence required a new trial.In Giglio's case, the Court found that neither DiPaola's authority nor his failure to inform his superior Hoey or his associate Golden was controlling. The Court held that, regardless of whether the failure to disclose was intentional or negligent, disclosing the information remained the responsibility of the prosecutor in its position as spokesman for the government; and that a promise made by one attorney on the case must be attributed to the government.
The Court noted that the government's case relied almost entirely on Taliento's testimony, and without it, there could have been no indictment, and no evidence to take to a jury. The Court found that this made Taliento's credibility an important issue; any evidence of an agreement or understanding with respect to Taliento's future prosecution was relevant to his credibility, and the jury was entitled to know about it. The Court held that due process required that Giglio be granted a new trial, and reversed and remanded.
External links
- Giglio v. United States (including audio of oral argument) at the Oyez Project