Giglio v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Giglio v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Giglio v. United States | 405 U.S. 150 (1972) When a trial comes down to one person’s testimony against another, a jury will often have to decide whom to believe. And if a prosecution witness has made a deal to testify in exchange for leniency or immunity from prosecution, that deal may affect the witness’s credibility. So, does a defendant have the right to know about deals made to prosecution witnesses? The United States Supreme Court considered that question in Giglio versus United States. Officials at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company discovered that Robert Taliento, one of its tellers, had cashed several forged money orders. Taliento confessed to federal agents that he’d given a customer’s signature card to John Giglio. Giglio used the signature card to forge two thousand three hundred dollars in money orders, which Taliento then processed in the normal course of business. After hearing Taliento’s testimony, a federal grand jury indicted Giglio. Taliento was named as a coconspirator but wasn’t indicted or charged. Taliento’s testimony was the only evidence linking Giglio with the crime. At Giglio’s trial, Taliento testified that the government hadn’t offered him any leniency or immunity from prosecution. Assistant U.S. Attorney Golden repeated in his summation that Taliento hadn’t received any promises of leniency. Giglio was convicted. Giglio then moved for a new trial based on the affidavit of Assistant U.S. Attorney DiPaola, who’d presented the case before the grand jury. DiPaola claimed to have promised Taliento that Taliento wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at Giglio’s trial. The district court didn’t try to resolve the conflict between the two government attorneys. The court decided that even if such a promise had been made and disclosed to the jury, it wouldn’t have affected the verdict. The Second Circuit affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted cert. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/giglio-... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/giglio-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries