Giglio v. United States 8212 29, No. 70

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBURGER
Citation405 U.S. 150,92 S.Ct. 763,31 L.Ed.2d 104
Docket NumberNo. 70
Decision Date24 February 1972
PartiesJohn GIGLIO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. —29

405 U.S. 150
92 S.Ct. 763
31 L.Ed.2d 104
John GIGLIO, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 70—29.
Argued Oct. 12, 1971.
Decided Feb. 24, 1972.

Syllabus

Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence contending that the Government failed to disclose an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in return for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant who tried the case was unaware of the promise. Held: Neither the Assistant's lack of authority nor his failure to inform his superiors and associates is controlling, and the prosecution's duty to present all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled and constitutes a violation of due process requiring a new trial. Pp. 153—155.

Reversed and remanded.

James M. LaRossa, New York City, for petitioner.

Harry R. Sachse, New Orleans, La., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was convicted of passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. While appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, defense counsel discovered new evidence indicating that the Government

Page 151

had failed to disclose an alleged promise made to its key witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified for the Government. We granted certiorari to determine whether the evidence not disclosed was such as to require a new trial under the due process criteria of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

The controversy in this case centers around the testimony of Robert Taliento, petitioner's alleged coconspirator in the offense and the only witness linking petitioner with the crime. The Government's evidence at trial showed that in June 1966 officials at the Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. discovered that Taliento, as teller at the bank, had cashed several forged money orders. Upon questioning by FBI agents, he confessed supplying petitioner with one of the bank's customer signature cards used by Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders; Taliento then processed these money orders through the regular channels of the bank. Taliento related this story to the grand jury and petitioner was indicted; thereafter, he was named as a coconspirator with petitioner but was not indicted.

Trial commenced two years after indictment. Taliento testified, identifying petitioner as the instigator of the scheme. Defense counsel vigorously cross-examined, seeking to discredit his testimony by revealing possible agreements or arrangements for prosecutorial leniency:

'(Counsel.) Did anybody tell you at any time that if you implicated somebody else in this case that you yourself would not be prosecuted?

'(Taliento.) Nobody told me I wouldn't be prosecuted.

'Q. They told you you might not be prosecuted?

'A. I believe I still could be prosecuted.

. . . . . .

Page 152

'Q. Were you ever arrested in this case or charged with anything in connection with these money orders that you testified to?

'A. Not at that particular time.

'Q. To this date, have you been charged with any crime?

'A. Not that I know of, unless they are still going to prosecute.'

In summation, the Government attorney stated, '(Taliento) received no promises that he would not be indicted.'

The issue now before the Court arose on petitioner's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. An affidavit filed by the Government as part of its opposition to a new trial confirms petitioner's claim that a promise was made to Taliento by one assistant, DiPaola,1 that if he testified before the grand jury and at trial he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9520 practice notes
  • Immigration: Criminal activity victims; ”U” nonimmigrant classification,
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 17, 2007
    • 17 de setembro de 2007
    ...material, to defendants. See U.S. Const. amend. V & VI; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). Accordingly, this rule incorporates this requirement at new 8 CFR 214.14(e)(1)(ix). 3. Annual Numerical Limitation on Grants of U Nonimmi......
  • Part IV
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 17, 2007
    • 17 de setembro de 2007
    ...material, to defendants. See U.S. Const. amend. V & VI; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). Accordingly, this rule incorporates this requirement at new 8 CFR 214.14(e)(1)(ix). 3. Annual Numerical Limitation on Grants of U Nonimmi......
  • Estate of Bryant v. Balt. Police Dep't, Civil Action No. ELH-19-384
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 10 de fevereiro de 2020
    ...impaired the credibility of . . . a key prosecution witness" constitutes a Brady violation); see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (requiring government disclosure of evidence tending to impeach its witnesses). Whether the suppression of the fingernail clippings is material ......
  • United States v. Harmon, No. CR 10–1760 JB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 10 de maio de 2012
    ...obligation to produce this evidence to Harmon under rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972),3 because there is no obligation to disclose impeachment evidence before a defendant enters a guilty ple......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9472 cases
  • Estate of Bryant v. Balt. Police Dep't, Civil Action No. ELH-19-384
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 10 de fevereiro de 2020
    ...impaired the credibility of . . . a key prosecution witness" constitutes a Brady violation); see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (requiring government disclosure of evidence tending to impeach its witnesses). Whether the suppression of the fingernail clippings is material ......
  • United States v. Harmon, No. CR 10–1760 JB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 10 de maio de 2012
    ...obligation to produce this evidence to Harmon under rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972),3 because there is no obligation to disclose impeachment evidence before a defendant enters a guilty ple......
  • Pearl v. Cason, No. CIV.A.01-CV-73051-DT.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • 13 de agosto de 2002
    ...favorable evidence includes the duty to disclose impeachment evidence. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375; Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-55, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that no expectation......
  • Arizona v. Roberson, No. 87-354
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 15 de junho de 1988
    ...failure to honor that request cannot be justified by the lack of diligence of a particular officer. Cf. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). The judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals is Affirmed. Justice O'CONNOR took no part in the consid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Pre-Trial
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part Two
    • 20 de junho de 2014
    ...witnesses if those statements are in the prosecutor’s possession. See 18 U.S.C. §3500; Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2. 4. 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 5. 405 U.S. 150 (1972). 6. 353 U.S. 657 (1957). Page 79 Page 80 Environmental Crimes Deskbook 2nd Edition diferent order of treatment, are also relevant to th......
  • The Innocence Checklist
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-1, January 2021
    • 1 de janeiro de 2021
    ...284. Mickelberg v The Queen (2004) 29 WAR 13, 19 (Austl.). 285. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 286. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153–54 (1972); R. v. Paraskeva [1982] 76 EWCA (Crim) 162 (Eng.). 287. MODEL RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT r. 3.8(d) (AM. BAR ASS’N 2020); CRIM. JUST......
  • Equalizing Access to Evidence: Criminal Defendants and the Stored Communications Act.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 5, March 2022
    • 1 de março de 2022
    ...(196.) California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984). (197.) Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. (198.) See, e.g., Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (199.) See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 ("Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the adminis......
  • Cop- Like ('[like]'): The First Amendment, Criminal Procedure, and the Regulation of Police Social Media Speech.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 74 Nbr. 6, June 2022
    • 1 de junho de 2022
    ...28384 and accompanying text. (203.) 373 U.S. 83,87 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97,106-08 (1976); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55 (1972); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 683-84 (1985); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419,437-39 (204.) See infra note 207 and accom......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 provisions
  • Act 101-0652, HB 3653 – AN ACT concerning criminal law
    • United States
    • Illinois Session Laws
    • 1 de janeiro de 2019
    ...and the Attorney General for the purpose of complying with obligations under Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) or Giglio v. United States (405 U.S. 150). This database shall also be accessible to the chief administrative officer of any governmental agency for the purposes of hiring law enforc......
  • Chapter 420, SB 174 – Policies For Peace Officer Credibility Disclosures
    • United States
    • Colorado Session Laws
    • 1 de janeiro de 2021
    ...ensure compliance with controlling federal and state case law interpreting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), and its progeny; as well as the Colorado rules of criminal SECTION 2.In Colorado Revised Sta......
  • Act 102-0694, HB 3512 – AN ACT concerning criminal law
    • United States
    • Illinois Session Laws
    • 1 de janeiro de 2021
    ...and the Attorney General for the purpose of complying with obligations under Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) or Giglio v. United States (405 U.S. 150). This database shall also be accessible to the chief administrative officer of any law enforcement governmental agency for the purposes of h......
  • Act 161, SB 250 – An act relating to law enforcement data collection and interrogation
    • United States
    • Vermont Session Laws
    • 1 de janeiro de 2022
    ...to enable a prosecutor to disclose such information consistently and appropriately under the obligations of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and its (b) Membership. The Giglio Database Study Committee shall be composed of the following members: (1) two current members of the Ho......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT