Criminology

The petitioner who had been promised leniency by the government for testifying in the case filed a motion on the bases of the revelation that the government did not disclose all the information on the promised testimony. The government had promised the key witness some immunity in return for his witness. The assistant attorney who presented the case agreed to have promised the key witness protection if he agreed to witness to the grand jury. However, the court was aware of the promise. The assistant attorney did not have the authority to control the proceeding and at the same time failed to brief his superiors on the matter. It is the duty of the prosecutor to present all the information about the evidence provided and therefore the due legal process was violated which necessitated a new trial.

The petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sent to prison for five years for forging money orders. His appeal against this ruling had however been pending in the court of appeal before this evidence was revealed. The defense council had obtained enough evidence signifying that the promise of leniency or protection from prosecution by the government to the petitioner was not disclosed to the relevant authority during the hearing of the case. The petitioner, Robert Taliento was the key witness in the controversial case where his testimony was crucial in the hearing of the case because he was the only witness who could have presented the important testimony. However, from his evidence, he was supposed coconspirator in the criminal act since it was alleged that he was linked to the crime. The petitioner was accused of cashing forged money orders while working as a bank teller. While he was being questioned by the investigation agencies, he testified to have provided the petitioner with signature cards belonging to the banks customers. He later processed the forged money orders according to the bank procedures. When he testified to the court, the petitioner was charged while he was considered a coconspirator in the forgery.

The trial of Taliento commenced two years after the instigator of the forgery was indicted. The defense council used all possible means in the cross examination to damage the standing of the testimony. The cross extermination aimed at disclosing all the arrangement and agreement before the testimony was given to which guaranteed the witness prosecutorial protection. The petitioner clarified that he was not informed that he would be prosecuted incase he implicated anybody in the forgery. However, after the cross extermination, the attorney concluded that the petitioners was not promised protection from indictment.            

A controversy however arose after the discovery of the new evidence. However, an affidavit was filed against the new trial by the government against the claim of the promised leniency. The prosecutor who took over the case also filed an affidavit he was assured that no promise of leniency was given to the witness. The US attorney also filed an affidavit which stated that he informed the witness of the consequences of testifying or not testifying to the jury. The conflict between the assistant attorneys was however difficult to resolve. Even if the assistant attorney had given the promise, he had no authority to do so and therefore even if he informed the jury of the arrangement, the verdict could not have changed.