There are 3 parts to this assignment each part needs a small
paragraph discussing about each assignment.)
to Disclose CJ 9 D
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the
U.S. Supreme Court held that due process is violated when the prosecution
suppresses evidence favorable to an accused upon request where the evidence is
material either to guilt or to punishment. The Brady Rule on Disclosure of
Evidence to the Accused purports that the prosecutor has a duty to disclose
evidence favorable to a defendant. Many cases have since been decided that
provide additional insight and clarification to this rule, such as United
States v. Agurs (1976), United States v. Bagley (1985), Kyles v.
Whitley (1995), and Strickler v. Greene (1999).
In your main post:
·Analyze the Brady rule in the
context of the Court’s rationale for this decision from a criminal justice
·Explain how the Court interpreted and
refined the Brady rule in one of its subsequent cases— United States
v. Agurs, United States v. Bagley, Kyles v. Whitley, or Strickler
·Explore how the Court’s interpretation in
your selected case, following Brady, impacts the application of the
VerdictsCJ 9 D
In our criminal justice system,
defendants have the right to a trial by jury. This right is guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights, specifically, the 6th Amendment. While the Constitution does
set forth requirements as to the size of the jury, it does not require that the
jury reach a unanimous verdict. A non-unanimous verdict is a verdict by a jury
that is not the result of a unanimous vote. In Apodaca v. Oregon, the
Supreme Court held that a 10-to-2 vote for conviction is constitutional. In Johnson
v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that a 9-to-3 vote for conviction was
constitutional. Given the defendant’s right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, the lack of requirement for a unanimous verdict may beg the question
as to whether it is appropriate to allow majority verdicts rather than
For this discussion, consider the fact
that the Supreme Court has discarded the argument that a less-than-unanimous
verdict violates the reasonable doubt standard, stating that the term reasonable
doubt refers to the individual juror and not the entire jury.
your main post:
whether all criminal trials should require unanimous verdicts, using a related
case as the basis for your position.
two practical issues that might arise under unanimous verdict requirements.
the implications of non-unanimous jury verdicts as a criminal justice
Against Law Enforcement OfficialsCJ 10
Civil liability may occur under tort law
in several circumstances. For instance, a police officer will be found liable
when what happened can be blamed solely on the officer and on nobody else and
transcends negligence. Additionally, a supervisor can be held liable when the
supervisor is involved in the act or when what happened can be linked to one or
all of the seven areas of supervisor negligence. Finally, a city or county is
considered liable when what happened was the result of policy or custom.
Recent cases have addressed the issue of
liability regarding both police officers’ individual liability as well as the
potential civil liability of government entities. Two such cases are Castle
Rock v. Gonzales (2005) and Brosseau v. Haugen (2004).
For this discussion, review Castle
Rock v. Gonzales and Brosseau v. Haugen, considering that both of
these cases could be said to favor law enforcement.
In your main post:
·Explain potential sources of tort
liability and whether they would be individual and/or departmental.
·Articulate adjustments at the officer and
departmental levels to avoid civil liability.
·Describe the overall impact of the
sources of tort liability on the field of criminal justice.