No. 490. Argued March 18-19, 1963.-Decided May 13, 1963

Published: 2023-01-18
No. 490. Argued March 18-19, 1963.-Decided May 13, 1963
Type of paper:  Case study
Categories: Policy Strategy United States Technology Government
Pages: 3
Wordcount: 692 words
6 min read

The case of Brady vs Maryland took place around 27 June, 1958 involving a 25 year-old male inhabitant of Maryland by the name John Leo Brady and Donald Boblit who was 24 years of age. The two murdered William Brooks who was acquainted to the both. Upon the decision made by the court, they were both convicted and sentenced to death with Brady admitting that indeed he had been involved in the murder of William Brooks but Boblit doing the literal killing. The duo planned on robbing a bank and they needed a car which prompted them to stealing Brook's car and not killing the latter. The trial was withheld though the two were tried separately and the prosecution withheld Boblit's statement that admitted that he committed the act of murdering Brooks. The court of Appeals in Maryland convicted and remanded the case for retrying on the basis of unsatisfied punishment. Brady's lawyer who was E. Clinton Bamberger Jr made an appeal to the Supreme Court which was in hope of attaining a new trial.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

The crime was not only robbery but murder that was entangled with the latter, a crime that was mostly punishable by death or life imprisonment however, and the jury was empowered to restrict it to life imprisonment through the addition of the statement 'without capital punishment.' The agreement between the common reason and the Court of Appeals was that if the confession was suppressed it would have been a definite violation of the law Due Process Clause of the amendment number fourteen which requires that one not be satisfied by notice if state has contrived a conviction by the pretense trial whereby the truth is used as a means of depriving liberty to a defendant by deliberately deceiving the court by presenting the testimony that is otherwise known to be perjured. The contrivance by the state to proceed with the conviction and judgement of the defendant is mostly inconsistent with the likelihood of obtaining justice through intimidation while expecting different results. Therefore there is a large amount of inconsiderable doubt as to whether Boblit's confession would have done any good at all to Brady had it been presented to the jury. The statement issued by Boblit proves that Brady was the one who had all along wanted to strangle the victim and insists that he would have liked to have killed the victim by the manner of shooting. The jury cannot be blamed for the decision made as they were also not sure of whose hands had murdered the victim as it might as well been both of them and would have thus been very dogmatic for people to assume that the jury would have been involved in the attaching of any significant evidence that would have led them to the reconsideration of a punishment for Brady.

The main question that seemed to have arisen from the case becomes clear, where exactly is the evidence material that would term one guilty to death or punishment? The Supreme Court however ruled that it is a violation of the act if the court wouldn't have suppressed the evidence as requested and thus declared, 'The suppression or withholding by the State of material evidence exculpatory to an accused is a violation of due process' and without citation of the due process clause of Maryland with the supreme court violating due process which under Maryland law "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." Through the occurrence, there was affirmation of ruling made by the Maryland Court of Appeals which demanded that Brady would receive a fresh hearing for the sentence that was issued to him and not a new trial. Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice BLACK joins, dissenting. The duo claim that the ruling was against the Fourteenth amendment which demanded right to equal protection. In the opinion of a law student such as myself, Boblit's statement would have been considered as an admission of guilt at the original trial which however seems like an implication of the court's opinion.

Works Cited

Brady v. State, 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167 (1961); cert. granted, 371 U.S. 812 (1962)

Cite this page

No. 490. Argued March 18-19, 1963.-Decided May 13, 1963. (2023, Jan 18). Retrieved from

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:

didn't find image

Liked this essay sample but need an original one?

Hire a professional with VAST experience!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism