Giglio v. United States
- Decided
- February 24, 1972
- Docket
- 70-29
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,003 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that exculpatory evidence under Brady includes evidence that could be used to impeach a key government witness — United States v. Coppa (2001)
- holding that the obligation to disclose under Brady applies to matters relevant to the credibility of a witness — Capano v. State (2001)
- holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness’ testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness — John Mills, Jr. v. Harry K. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (1995)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
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 [*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 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963).
The controversy in this case centers around the testimony of Robert Taliento, petitioner’s alleged cocon-spirator 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.
Cite this
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.