Talk:Giglio v. United States

Reconciling when DiPaola/Golden conflict was discovered
As I wrote this, I was conscious of an apparent contradiction in this article, in the following two sentences:


 * While his appeal was pending, his counsel discovered evidence of the government's discussions with Taliento. (suggesting that DiPaola's conversation with Taliento was not known until the appellate phase, after the trial was over); and
 * The trial court did not attempt to reconcile the apparent conflict between DiPaola and Golden. (suggesting that DiPaola's conversation with Taliento known at the time of the trial).

I cannot reconcile these, but they come from the Supreme Court opinion:


 * While appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, defense counsel discovered new evidence indicating that the Government had failed to disclose an alleged promise made to its key witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified for the Government. Giglio at 150-151.
 * 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. Giglio at 153.

Ideas? TJRC (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)