How the Brady v. Maryland ruling was used in People v. Cwikla and Research Paper

How the Brady v. Maryland ruling was used in People v. Cwikla and People v. Steadman - Research Paper Example However, he appealed the case where case was reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct and errors that were committed by the court. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon second degree and manslaughter second degree where they had killed Maxine Peterson on May 28, 1988. The only prosecution witness who could have identified the defendants was a drug addict and user and had previously committed two felonies. In that, at the period of the prosecution he was on probation for one of the previous convictions where three open felony charges were pending prosecution. The defendants in the case sought a pre-trial disclosure of any promise of leniency made to the witness in altercation for his favorable testimony against the defendants. The prosecutor revealed some of the arrangements that were made with the witness, but did not advise the defendant that the Assistant district Attorney had agreed that Malloy the witness was not required to go to prison for the pending charges in case he testified against the defendants. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S 83 (1963) in these case it was established that turnover of information is imperative and is a requirement under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. It was further held that the subdual by the prosecution counsel of proof in favor of the accused person upon the appeal by the defendant violates due process. This is because the evidence that is being suppressed is material to establish whether the defendant is guilty or punishment irrespective of good or bad conviction of the trial. This has now been illustrated as the brandy rule. In the case of People v. Cwikla, the Brady rule was used in this case because the prosecutor failed to confirm correspondence in support with the informant application for parole. In this case, the court alleged that the prosecution is under the obligation to disclose to the defense counsel any