GIGLIO v. UNITED STATES
GIGLIO v. UNITED STATES (1972)
United States Supreme Court
Argued: October 12, 1971Decided: February 24, 1972
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.
BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members
joined except POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., who took no part in the consideration
or decision of the case.
James M. La Rossa argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Harry R. Sachse argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome
M. Feit, and Beatrice Rosenberg.
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
[405 U.S. 150, 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 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.
. . . . .
[405 U.S. 150, 152]
"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
2 DiPaola 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.
3 The United
[405 U.S. 150, 153] 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.
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 (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
(1942). In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (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. Thereafter
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S., at 87 , held that suppression of material
evidence justifies a new trial "irrespective of the good faith or
bad faith of the prosecution." See American
[405 U.S. 150, 154] Bar Association, Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution
Function and the Defense Function 3.11 (a). When the "reliability
of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,"
nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general
rule. Napue, supra, at 269. We do not, however, automatically require
a new trial whenever "a combing of the prosecutors' files after
the trial has disclosed evidence possibly useful to the defense but not
likely to have changed the verdict . . . ." United States v. Keogh,
391 F.2d 138, 148 (CA2 1968). A finding of materiality of the evidence
is required under Brady, supra, at 87. A new trial is required if "the
false testimony could . . . in any reasonable likelihood have affected
the judgment of the jury . . . ." Napue, supra, at 271.
In the circumstances shown by this record, neither DiPaola's authority
nor his failure to inform his superiors or his associates is controlling.
Moreover, whether the nondisclosure was a result of negligence or design,
it is the responsibility of the prosecutor. The prosecutor's office
is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise
made by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government.
See Restatement (Second) of Agency 272. See also American Bar Association,
Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Discovery and Procedure Before
Trial 2.1 (d). To the extent this places a burden on the large prosecution
offices, procedures and regulations can be established to carry that burden
and to insure communication of all relevant information on each case to
every lawyer who deals with it.
Here the Government's case depended almost entirely on Taliento's
testimony; without it there could have been no indictment and no evidence
to carry the case to the jury. Taliento's credibility as a witness
[405 U.S. 150, 155] an important issue in the case, and evidence of any understanding or agreement
as to a future prosecution would be relevant to his credibility and the
jury was entitled to know of it.
For these reasons, the due process requirements enunciated in Napue and
the other cases cited earlier require a new trial, and the judgment of
conviction is therefore reversed and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration
or decision of this case.
Footnote 1 ] During oral argument in this Court it was stated that DiPaola was on
the staff of the United States Attorney when he made the affidavit in
1969 and remained on that staff until recently.
Footnote 2 ] DiPaola's affidavit reads, in part, as follows:
"It was agreed that if ROBERT EDWARD TALIENTO would testify before
the Grand Jury as a witness for the Government, . . . he would not be
. . . indicted. . . . It was further agreed and understood that he, ROBERT
EDWARD TALIENTO, would sign a Waiver of Immunity from prosecution before
the Grand Jury, and that if he eventually testified as a witness for the
Government at the trial of the defendant, JOHN GIGLIO, he would not be
Footnote 3 ] Golden's affidavit reads, in part, as follows:
"Mr. DiPaola . . . advised that Mr. Taliento had not been granted
immunity but that he had not indicted him because Robert Taliento was
very young at the time of the alleged occurrence and obviously had been
overreached by the defendant Giglio."
Footnote 4 ] The Hoey affidavit, standing alone, contains at least an implication
that the Government would reward the cooperation of the witness, and hence
tends to confirm rather than refute the existence of some understanding
[405 U.S. 150, 156]