Conventionally, the judicial process is supposed to be impartial, fair, and just. A common maxim of “proving beyond reasonable doubt” exists within the legal framework to signify the importance of ensuring that justice is served to both the complainant and the defendant. All the parties involved in the judicial process ranging from law enforcement officers, the prosecutors, defense lawyers and the jury are expected to hold the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and transparency when acting on any case. Nevertheless, the failure to adhere to the due process, as it was the case in the Brady v Maryland case raises numerous ethical implications especially to the prosecution and the jury.
Facts about the Case
On June 27, 1958, John Brady and his companion Donald Boblit murdered 53-year old William Brooks. Both of them were found guilty of murder and were given a death sentence. However, although Brady admitted he was guilty of participating in the crime, he denied being involved in the murder of Brooks (Gershman, 2005). He also revealed how they intended to use the car they had stolen from their victim in a bank robbery they had planned. Before trial, Brady’s attorney had requested the prosecution to grant him Boblit’s extrajudicial statements. Some of the statements were shown to him, but the statement where Boblit had admitted of killing Brooks was concealed by the prosecutor, and neither Bradley nor his attorney noticed it until after he had been tried, convicted and sentenced. The Maryland Court of Appeals had even further affirmed Brady’s conviction. However, in a post-conviction proceeding, the Maryland Court of Appeals stated that the suppression of the evidence by the prosecutor obscured the petitioner’s (Brady) right to due process of law, and remanded the case for a new trial on the question of punishment. Although Brady was involved in the crime as he had especially admitted, he did not deserve capital punishment, because he did not do the actual killing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical Issues in the Case
The most evident issue in this case is that the prosecutor deliberately withheld an important statement that would not necessarily exonerate Brady but that would be crucial in determining the sentence each of the defendants would receive. Brady’s attorney had asked the prosecutor to avail Boblit’s extrajudicial statements but he had been selective on which ones to provide. It would not be reasonable enough to argue that the prosecutor did not have prior knowledge of Boblit’s statement as the admission was probably the basis upon which the jury decided to convict Brady. Since the two were together when the crime was committed, Boblit’s admission that he had committed murder was assumed to be an act that involved both the defendants. Brady’s argument that they had not intended to kill their victim, William Brooks, probably suggests that Boblit had acted independently and had gone overboard their intended plan. From Brady’s argument, it can be gathered that the two had seemingly wanted to steal Williams’ car to use it for a pre-planned bank robbery. While both of them committed crimes, clearly they are different crimes of varying magnitude.
Brady was going to face a death sentence for a crime he had not committed. In crimes involving more than one individual, disagreements are bound to happen, particularly on how to perform them. There should not be an assumption that all criminals act unilaterally, especially considering the case involving Brady and his companion. If killing William Brooks had not been part of the plan, it is likely that Brady had been shocked and surprised by Boblit’s sudden and independent decision to kill their victim. Even more importantly, it is suspicious for the prosecutor to try and conceal Boblit’s statement that would evidently have an impact on the type of sentences the two would be given.
Ethical Implications to Prosecution
Firstly, the Brady v Maryland case shows that prosecution teams mostly focus on winning cases as opposed to ensuring that justice is served. There seems to be some form of thrill, pleasure and satisfaction when prosecutors ensure that defendants are sentenced, for lack of such an outcome is perceived to be failure. This perception clearly raises an ethical dilemma, concerning whether the work of prosecution teams is to ensure that people accused of committing crimes are jailed or their role is to ensure that cases are pursued to the absolute truth. The latter is usually the case; a successful prosecutor is often viewed as one who has achieved the most convictions. Such prosecutors are even sought after in cases that gain much public attention because of their success. While many of such prosecutors are people of integrity and work diligently to serve justice to all parties involved in a case, some of them use dubious and underhand methods, and, therefore, may not adhere to the due process.
If a prosecutor’s success is viewed in the lens of the number of convictions he or she has achieved, then the prosecution side of the judicial process may be tainted. Every prosecutor will be obsessed with the “winning” mentality and will as a result lose sight of a defendant’s constitutional right to fair trial (HG.org Legal Resources, n.d). Just like in the Brady v Maryland case, prosecutors will try to conceal information or evidence to a defendant’s attorney to gain an edge in a case. Additionally, it is likely that prosecutors will try to coerce the accused or convince them to implicate their accomplices. For instance, a prosecutor might initiate a plea bargain with one of the accused in a matter involving several individuals promising to acquit the former and convict the accomplices. Securing the freedom of one person and ensuring that several others are convicted definitely is “victory” for the prosecution.
The U.S. Supreme Court noted some of the ethical issues facing the prosecution in the Berger v. United States case and noted as follows:
The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor – indeed, he should do so.
But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one (Legal Information Institute, n.d).
In this statement, the Supreme Court acknowledges that prosecutors may be tempted to use wrong methods to convict the accused, which definitely contravene the due process and could lead to injustice. A prosecutor’s role in the judicial process is not to win, but to provide evidence and cooperate with other individuals to ensure fair and just trial. If the jury determines that the facts presented do not implicate the defendant, then the prosecutor should not see the case as having been lost because all matters taken to court do not mean that a crime was necessarily committed.
Ethical Implications to the Jury
In the Brady v Maryland case, a prominent ethical implication to the jury relates to impartiality. Brady admitted that he had been an accomplice but did not kill William Brooks. However, the jury seems not to have paid much attention to Brady’s claim, and might not have also considered much of Boblit’s admission that he had been the one who actually killed Brooks. It seems the jury had only relied heavily on the prosecutor’s arguments and statements and paid little attention to the defense team. A keener jury ought to have required Brady to prove that he had not killed Brooks, and a more careful examination of the prosecution’s evidence would have revealed Boblit’s admission. In this case, the jury must have been keen on convicting as opposed to establishing all the facts of the case and granting a fair trial.
Conclusion
Moving forward, juries and the entire judicial process face the ethical issue of mainly leaning towards convicting rather than ensuring fair trial and adherence to due process. The constitution grants the accused the right to fair and just trial, and it is important for the prosecution, law enforcement, and the juries to ensure these rights are protected. Perhaps it is time to have a total paradigm shift from the concept of “winning” cases to serving justice. Serving justice ensures that the right people are sentenced for their actual crimes, while at the same time ensuring that the complainants are satisfied with the judicial process. The work of the judiciary should not be seen merely as sentencing criminals, but should be about finding the truth, upholding integrity, and exercising impartiality.
References
Gershman, B. L. (2005). Reflections on Brady v. Maryland . S. Tex. L. Rev. , 47 , 685. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1180&context=lawfaculty
HG.org Legal Resources. (n.d). The ethical implications of a Brady violation. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/the-ethical-implications-of-a-brady-violation-27300
Legal Information Institute. (n.d). Berger v. United States . https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/295/78
