Case Brief 1 Boyanski

Ashford University **We aren't endorsed by this school
L 102
Oct 30, 2023
Uploaded by slbnclb2010 on
This is a preview
Want to read all 4 pages? Go Premium today.
Already Premium? Sign in here
Deborah Boyanski Case Brief 1 Columbia College CJAD 405 March 16, 2022
MADDOX v. MONTGOMERY United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1983) Facts : Jimmy Maddox was accused rape in a Georgia State Court and was sentenced to life in prison. Maddox was trying to sell the victim insurance and when she declined, he forcibly raped her. Another woman also stated that she purchased insurance from him but dropped it due to his odd behaviors. Maddox stated that the victim consented to the sexual contact. Maddox filed a direct appeal and state post-conviction remedy, which were both unsuccessful. Appellant appealed the denial of habeas relief, alleging prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation of the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. The Court affirmed. Issue: Was the appellant's right to due process violated by the state's failure to disclose exculpatory information? Decision : The court dismissed the appellant's habeas petition and was affirmed. This was due to the fact that the evidence was not requested as according to Brady v. Maryland and also because the evidence was deemed as immaterial and would not have resulted in an acquittal. Reasoning : The court determined that of the four types of situations that the Brady doctrine applies, that one must establish the materiality of the exculpatory information suppressed by the prosecution. The court determined that the state failed to disclose substantive evidence favorable to the defendant for which there was no specific request, the standard set forth in United States v. Agurs in which it states failure to disclose violates due process only "if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist." The evidence was found to be immaterial and the suppression of the evidence did not violate the appellant's due process rights. As stated in the United States v. Blasco, "the suppressed evidence is material only if its introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal." Citations : Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1962) Cannon v. State of Alabama. 558 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1977) United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) United States v. Blasco, 581 F.2d 681 (1978)
United States v. Kopituk, 690 F.2d 1289, 1336-37 (11th Cir. 1982) Rule of Law : According to the courts, one cannot successfully petition a Brady claim unless they are able to "establish the materiality of the exculpatory information" that the prosecution suppressed (Ingram, 2017) Additionally, evidence must prove a reasonable possibility that acquittal would prevail if evidence would have been presented. So, under Blasco, the evidence is immaterial and its suppression did not violate the appellant's due process rights. Any dissenting or concurring opinions Not applicable
Why is this page out of focus?
Because this is a Premium document. Subscribe to unlock this document and more.
Page1of 4
Uploaded by slbnclb2010 on