William Maynard - Prosecutor Misconduct

Maynard, William; manslaughter; [not on NRE list:] prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence

[337:664]; 1st Dept. 11/9/72; affirmed

"The record shows that Maynard's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt."

[363:384]; N.Y.Cty. Ct. 3/29/74; reversed, due to Brady violations

[Neither the prosecutor nor the witness at trial mentioned the latter's ongoing mental condition;* it was this witness's testimony that was most damning. Also, the prosecution repeatedly ignored defense counsel's requests for witness's criminal records.]

[* This was also true of 'Arthur' in the Nickel case. Though the boy did list the numerous psychiatric medications he was on, neither he nor anyone else ever disclosed precisely what conditions they were meant to be treating.]

R31 [822] "William A. Maynard was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in [Manhattan] on February 4, 1971, following two previous trials which had resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial...In 1974, [County] Court, acting at the request of the [DA], dismissed all charges against Maynard and ordered him released because the prosecution had suppressed evidence pertaining to the unreliability of its chief witness. Specifically, this witness had a long history of psychiatric hospitalizations and a criminal record which the prosecutors unlawfully failed to reveal..."

 

Perversion of Justice

Is deliberately finding someone guilty of things he did not do ever justified? If we convict people for acts of child sexual abuse that never happened, does that somehow 'make up' for all the past abuse that went completely unpunished? Is it okay to pervert justice in order to punish people wrongly perceived as perverts?

Learn More