Giglio v. United States 8212 29

Decision Date24 February 1972
Docket NumberNo. 70,70
Citation405 U.S. 150,92 S.Ct. 763,31 L.Ed.2d 104
PartiesJohn GIGLIO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. —29
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
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 BURGERdelivered 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 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), andBrady 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.

'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 would not be prosecuted.2DiPaola presented the Government's case to the grand jury but did not try the case in the District Court, and Golden, the assistant who took over the case for trial, filed an affidavit stating that DiPaola assured him before the trial that no promises of immunity had been made to Taliento.3The United States Attorney, Hoey, filed an affidavit stating that he had personally consulted with Taliento and his attorney shortly before trial to emphasize that Taliento would definitely be prosecuted if he did not testify and that if he did testify he would be obliged to rely on the 'good judgment and conscience of the Government' as to whether he would be prosecuted.4

The District Court did not undertake to resolve the apparent conflict between the two Assistant United States Attorneys, DiPaola and Golden, but proceeded on the theory that even if a promise had been made by DiPaola it was not authorized and its disclosure to the jury would not have affected its verdict.We need not concern ourselves with the differing versions of the events as described by the two assistants in their affidavits.The heart of the matter is that one Assistant United States Attorney the first one who dealt with Taliento—now states that he promised Taliento that he would not be prosecuted if he cooperated with the Government.

As long ago as Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 342, 79 L.Ed. 791(1935), this Court made clear that deliberate deception of a court and jurors by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with 'rudimentary demands of justice.'This was reaffirmed in Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214(1942).In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217(1959), we said, '(t)he same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.'Id., at 269, 79 S.Ct., at 1177.Thereafter Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S., at 87, 83 S.Ct., at 1197, held that suppression of material evidence justifies a new trial 'irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11262 cases
  • Ford v. Tate
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 2019
    ...closing argument violated United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). The habeas court found that couns......
  • Lovern v. US, Crim. No. 82-00023-01-R
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 22 Junio 1988
    ...Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1197. The rule covers impeachment, as well as exculpatory, evidence. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). The standard to apply in evaluating whether the government's failure to produce documents pursuant to Brady v......
  • Smalls v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 7 Febrero 2018
    ...of a promise of immunity made to that witness is a violation of due process." (quoting Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104, 108 (1972) ) ). The court of appeals was correct to find trial counsel was deficient in handling the carjacking charge.B. Pr......
  • Atkins v. Polk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 16 Agosto 2011
    ...of guilt or innocence,' nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule." Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) (quoting Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959)). The Supreme Court ha......
  • Get Started for Free
5 firm's commentaries
  • Chief Judge Kozinski’s Ninth Circuit Dissent In U.S. v. Olsen Offers Hope that Courts Will Keep Prosecutors Honest
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 27 Enero 2014
    ...that evidence is material to guilt or innocence. This includes any evidence that speaks to the credibility of a witness. Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 Evidence is material under Brady if it creates "a 'reasonable probability' of a different result." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). "A ......
  • January Antitrust Bulletin - January 20, 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 25 Enero 2012
    ...that the government had failed to comply with its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). But the court ruled that the government has no obligation to affirmatively identify particular pieces of exculpatory evidence, nor is ......
  • Making Sense Of Brady Disclosure Obligations In Parallel Proceedings
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 27 Julio 2012
    ...of witness statements required immediately prior to trial as pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and Giglio v. United States, 92 S. Ct. 763 Assistant U.S. attorneys customarily include all agent interview notes and memoranda among those materials, in part because it is hard to ant......
  • New Florida Rule Requires Training for Attorneys Who Handle Adult Felony Cases
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 11 Marzo 2015
    ...setting to evaluate it “at the earliest feasible opportunity” and before the court conducts a plea hearing. Edward Page Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Once it takes effect, attorneys must complete the required training before participating as counsel of record in adult felony......
  • Get Started for Free
117 books & journal articles
  • Equalizing Access to Evidence: Criminal Defendants and the Stored Communications Act.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 5, March 2022
    • 1 Marzo 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......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...the bias or of the reason for the bias. Farris v. State , 676 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dir.] 1984); see Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). A plea-bargain agreement that calls for a witness to testify truthfully in another defendant’s trial d......
  • Discovery and investigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests
    • 5 Mayo 2021
    ...includes the obligation to discover and produce any evidence of impeachment of a prosecution witness. [ Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150, 154.] The United States Supreme Court wrote: “When the ‘reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,’ nondi......
  • 9.2 Discovery
    • United States
    • Virginia CLE Defending Criminal Cases in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 9 Pretrial Proceedings
    • Invalid date
    ...counsel failed to request a recess or continuance to review the tape); Hamm v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 150, 428 S.E.2d 517 (1993).[67] 405 U.S. 150 (1972).[68] See, e.g., Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995); Barbee v. Warden, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964); Megel v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. A......
  • Get Started for Free
1 forms
  • 08 109 PRETRIAL ORDER FOR CRIMINAL CASES
    • United States
    • Arkansas Bar Association Arkansas Form Book - Complete (2023 Ed.) Chapter 8 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    • Invalid date
    ...of the defendant whether the defendant requests this information or not. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Brady and Giglio information must be disclosed in time for effective use at trial. In re United States (United States v. Coppa), 267 ......
4 provisions
  • Act 101-0652, HB 3653 – AN ACT concerning criminal law
    • United States
    • US session laws and acts Illinois Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 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
    • US session laws and acts Colorado Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 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 102-1117, HB 4664 – AN ACT concerning regulation
    • United States
    • US session laws and acts Illinois Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...limitation does not apply for the purpose of complying with obligations under Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) or Giglio v. United States (405 U.S. 150). If the witness, who is summoned as above provided, after being paid or tendered by some properly authorized person the sum of 10 cents a m......
  • Act 161, SB 250 – An act relating to law enforcement data collection and interrogation
    • United States
    • US session laws and acts Vermont Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 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 progeny.(b) Membership. The Giglio Database Study Committee shall be composed of the following members:(1) two current members of......

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