Citation network
Giles Vs. Maryland
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 1967
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 66 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Giles v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 66 (1967) Giles v. MarylandSearch
-
whether an inquiry should be ordered to determine the applicability Page 386 U. S. 67 of the rule of Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals of Maryland, sitting en banc, reversed, two judges dissenting. State v. GilesSearch
-
Giles v. StateSearch
-
despite the absence of a pretrial request by defense counsel for disclosure of the evidence suppressed. See Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
decisions which determined that the suppression of evidence constituted the denial of due process of law. See Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
Almeida v. BaldiSearch
-
Thompson v. DyeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Barbee v. WardenSearch
-
new trial. We find, however, that it is unnecessary, and therefore inappropriate, to examine those questions. In Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
While, under the law of Maryland, specific acts of misconduct are inadmissible to impeach a witness' credibility, Rau v. StateSearch
-
A. 867, and specific acts of intercourse are inadmissible to establish the prosecutrix' consent, Humphreys v. StateSearch
-
and evidence of general reputation for unchastity are admissible to impeach a witness' credibility, see Giles v. StateSearch
-
questions by allowing state courts to take action which might dispose of the case. See for example, Patterson v. AlabamaSearch
-
hearing in the state courts would make unnecessary further evidentiary proceedings in the federal courts. See Townsend v. SainSearch
-
the opportunity to the Maryland Court of Appeals to decide whether a further hearing should be directed. See Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
Petitioners had previously appealed unsuccessfully from the convictions, Giles v. StateSearch
-
Md. 370, 183 A.2d 359, appeal dismissed, 372 U. S. 767 , and from the denial of a new trial, Giles v. StateSearch
-
Hazel v. StateSearch
-
See Hunt v. WardenSearch
-
Midgett v. WardenSearch
-
I am unable to join the opinion of my Brother BRENNAN. In my view, there was no violation of the rule of Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
the promiscuous conduct of the prosecuting witness. As to her mental condition, the court cited with approval People v. BastianSearch
-
not to be distinguished in principle from misrepresentation. Page 386 U. S. 100 This Court so held in Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
s comments to mean that he would not require the State to disclose this information. He would apparently regard Miller v. PateSearch
-
and Rule 16's silence on that subject. I find none in the requirement, recognized by this Court in Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
In Griffin v. UnitedSearch
-
prosecution was inadmissible. On remand, a new rule of admissibility was formulated and a new trial ordered. Griffin v. UnitedSearch
-
Under the law of Maryland, specific acts of misconduct are not admissible to impeach a witness' credibility. Rau v. StateSearch
-
prosecutrix' general reputation for immorality, it does not permit evidence of specific acts of intercourse. Shartzer v. StateSearch
-
Humphreys v. StateSearch
-
Griffin v. UnitedSearch
-
at the trial. Its omission did not discolor the meaning of controlling facts, as did the episode involved in Alcorta v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 28 , nor did it measurably strengthen a witness' credibility, as did the one involved in Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
in light of a supervening event. Nothing here is remotely analogous to the change in state law that occurred in Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 226 , or to the intervening judgments of this Court that took place in Patterson v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 600 , and in Dorchy v. KansasSearch
-
broader disclosures than this Court has ever held the Fourteenth Amendment to require. The Court has held since Mooney v. HolohanSearch
-
has been understood to include cases in which a State knowingly permits false testimony to remain uncorrected. Alcorta v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Giles v. MarylandSearch
-
of Napue v. IllinoisSearch
-
State v. GilesSearch
-
See Brady v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial