Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was convicted of passing forged money orders, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. While D's appeal was pending, he discovered new evidence that P had failed to disclose a promise made to its key witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified for the Government. Robert Taliento, D's alleged co-conspirator and the only witness linking P with the crime was a teller at the bank and had cashed several forged money orders. Taliento confessed supplying D with one of the bank's customer signature cards used to forge $2,300 in money orders; Taliento then processed these money orders through the regular channels of the bank. Taliento told this story to the grand jury, and D was indicted. Taliento was named as a co-conspirator but was not indicted. At trial, the Government attorney stated, '[Taliento] received no promises that he would not be indicted.' D made a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. P plead that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing as the promise was made by one government prosecutor, but a different one did the trial. DiPaola assured him before the trial that no promises of immunity had been made to Taliento. The District Court held that the promise by DiPaola was not authorized, and its disclosure to the jury would not have affected its verdict. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co