Conviction Review in Name Only?
ctexaminer.com
Ronald Sullivan was the first African American to serve as a faculty dean of a residential dorm at Harvard College. He had served in that role at Winthrop House for a decade when the Dean of the College, Rakesh Khurana, asked him to step down because students were protesting his legal representation of  Hollywood mogul […]

In the memo on Taylor’s case, the [Conviction Integrity Unit] makes it clear it doesn’t want to review allegations that prosecutors may have a hand in wrongful convictions. The committee stated:

“CIU declines the vast majority of Ineffective Assistance and Brady/Giglio because a Habeas trial is the better venue to resolve most of these claims.”

Brady and Giglio violations are roughly the same but they’re not identical. A Brady violation refers to the failure of the prosecution in a criminal case to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defendant and material to either guilt or punishment. It’s named after the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, where the Court ruled that the prosecution must provide the defense with any evidence that could be favorable to the accused. This includes evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses, evidence that could exonerate the defendant, or evidence that could affect the outcome of the case.

A “Giglio violation” — called that for the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case Giglio v. United States — is slightly different in that it refers to failures to disclose evidence that could affect the credibility of a witness only. In Giglio, the Court ruled that prosecutors must disclose to the defense any evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses, especially if it pertains to deals, promises, or incentives offered to a witness in exchange for their testimony.

That slight difference in the types of discovery violations doesn’t erase the fact that prosecutors contribute to possible injustices in criminal cases. And it looks like they committed both types of violations in Derrick Taylor’s case — a Brady violation in withholding Frank DeJesus’ statement and a Giglio violation in not disclosing Fitzalbert Williams’ extensive criminal history and the fact that he took a walk on serious drug charges. But only the possible Giglio violation is addressed in the CIU memo on Taylor’s case. The ostensible Brady violation was hidden — again.

Even though Connecticut prosecutors advertise “open file” discovery, the state has yet to make it an official policy. Bills proposed to do just that in 2018 and 2019 didn’t receive a hearing, much less a vote.

It’s not just Taylor’s case that has the CIU dancing around Brady and Giglio. Attorney Samantha Conway of the Brodeur Law Firm in Middletown shared an interaction with the CIU with the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association listserve on February 6, 2023, writing that:

“We wrote to them asking that CIU investigate the integrity of a conviction where there is a very valid Brady claim, and the CIU would not review it. I was told that the CIU’s review is for “forensic and credibility issues”. When I countered that Brady is certainly a credibility issue, and clearly deals directly with the integrity of the prosecutor, I was then told that the “CIU is concerned about credibility issues where there has already been prior testimony” – which narrows it down to what, recantations? So cases where the integrity of the [State’s Attorney’s] office and handling of the case doesn’t actually matter?”

Bolding added, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240105131143/https://ctexaminer.com/2023/12/31/conviction-review-in-name-only/