Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (2023)

U.S. Supreme Court

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

Giglio v. United States

No. 70-29

Argued October 12, 1971

Decided February 24, 1972

405 U.S. 150

Syllabus

Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence contending that the Government failed to disclose an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in return for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant who tried the case was unaware of the promise.

Held: Neither the Assistant's lack of authority nor his failure to inform his superiors and associates is controlling, and the prosecution's duty to present all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled, and constitutes a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. Pp. 405 U. S. 153-155.

Reversed and remanded.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

U.S. Supreme Court

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

Giglio v. United States

(Video) Giglio v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

No. 70-29

Argued October 12, 1971

Decided February 24, 1972

405 U.S. 150

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence contending that the Government failed to disclose an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in return for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant who tried the case was unaware of the promise.

Held: Neither the Assistant's lack of authority nor his failure to inform his superiors and associates is controlling, and the prosecution's duty to present all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled, and constitutes a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. Pp. 405 U. S. 153-155.

Reversed and remanded.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was convicted of passing forged money orders, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. While appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, defense counsel discovered new evidence indicating that the Government

Page 405 U. S. 151

(Video) Brady v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

had failed to disclose an alleged promise made to its key witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified for the Government. We granted certiorari to determine whether the evidence not disclosed was such as to require a new trial under the due process criteria of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963).

The controversy in this case centers around the testimony of Robert Taliento, petitioner's alleged coconspirator in the offense and the only witness linking petitioner with the crime. The Government's evidence at trial showed that in June, 1966, officials at the Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. discovered that Taliento, as teller at the bank, had cashed several forged money orders. Upon questioning by FBI agents, he confessed supplying petitioner with one of the bank's customer signature cards used by Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders; Taliento then processed these money orders through the regular channels of the bank. Taliento related this story to the grand jury, and petitioner was indicted; thereafter, he was named as a coconspirator with petitioner, but was not indicted.

Trial commenced two years after indictment. Taliento testified, identifying petitioner as the instigator of the scheme. Defense counsel vigorously cross-examined, seeking to discredit his testimony by revealing possible agreements or arrangements for prosecutorial leniency:

"[Counsel.] Did anybody tell you at any time that, if you implicated somebody else in this case, that you yourself would not be prosecuted?"

"[Taliento.] Nobody told me I wouldn't be prosecuted."

"Q. They told you you might not be prosecuted?"

"A. I believe I still could be prosecuted."

"* * * *

Page 405 U. S. 152

"

"Q. Were you ever arrested in this case or charged with anything in connection with these money orders that you testified to?"

"A. Not at that particular time."

"Q. To this date, have you been charged with any crime?"

"A. Not that I know of, unless they are still going to prosecute."

(Video) Defendants' Rights to Exculpatory Evidence: Brady v. Maryland

In summation, the Government attorney stated, "[Taliento] received no promises that he would not be indicted."

The issue now before the Court arose on petitioner's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. An affidavit filed by the Government as part of its opposition to a new trial confirms petitioner's claim that a promise was made to Taliento by one assistant, DiPaola, [Footnote 1] that, if he testified before the grand jury and at trial, he would not be prosecuted. [Footnote 2] DiPaola presented the Government's case to the grand jury, but did not try the case in the District Court, and Golden, the assistant who took over the case for trial, filed an affidavit stating that DiPaola assured him before the trial that no promises of immunity had been made to Taliento. [Footnote 3] The United

Page 405 U. S. 153

States Attorney, Hoey, filed an affidavit stating that he had personally consulted with Taliento and his attorney shortly before trial to emphasize that Taliento would definitely be prosecuted if he did not testify and that, if he did testify, he would be obliged to rely on the "good judgment and conscience of the Government" as to whether he would be prosecuted. [Footnote 4]

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. We need not concern ourselves with the differing versions of the events as described by the two assistants in their affidavits. The heart of the matter is that one Assistant United States Attorney -- the first one who dealt with Taliento -- now states that he promised Taliento that he would not be prosecuted if he cooperated with the Government.

As long ago as Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 294 U. S. 112 (1935), this Court made clear that deliberate deception of a court and jurors by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with "rudimentary demands of justice." This was reaffirmed in Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213 (1942). In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), we said, "[t]he same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." Id. at 360 U. S. 269. Thereafter, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. at 373 U. S. 87, held that suppression of material evidence justifies a new trial "irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." See American

Page 405 U. S. 154

Bar Association, Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and the Defense Function § 3.11(a). When the "reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence," nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule. Napue, supra, at 360 U. S. 269. We do not, however, automatically require a new trial whenever

"a combing of the prosecutors' files after the trial has disclosed evidence possibly useful to the defense but not likely to have changed the verdict. . . ."

United States v. Keogh, 391 F.2d 138, 148 (CA2 1968). A finding of materiality of the evidence is required under Brady, supra, at 373 U. S. 87. A new trial is required if "the false testimony could . . . in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury. . . ." Napue, supra, at 360 U. S. 271.

In the circumstances shown by this record, neither DiPaola's authority nor his failure to inform his superiors or his associates is controlling. Moreover, whether the nondisclosure was a result of negligence or design, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor. The prosecutor's office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 272. See also American Bar Association, Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial § 2.1(d). To the extent this places a burden on the large prosecution offices, procedures and regulations can be established to carry that burden and to insure communication of all relevant information on each case to every lawyer who deals with it.

Here, the Government's case depended almost entirely on Taliento's testimony; without it, there could have been no indictment and no evidence to carry the case to the jury. Taliento's credibility as a witness was therefore

Page 405 U. S. 155

an important issue in the case, and evidence of any understanding or agreement as to a future prosecution would be relevant to his credibility and he jury was entitled to know of it.

(Video) Frankly, Miss Scarlett. . .

For these reasons, the due process requirements enunciated in Napue and the other cases cited earlier require a new trial, and the judgment of conviction is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

[Footnote 1]

During oral argument in this Court, it was stated that DiPaola was on the staff of the United States Attorney when he made the affidavit in 1969, and remained on that staff until recently.

[Footnote 2]

DiPaola's affidavit reads, in part, as follows:

"It was agreed that, if ROBERT EDWARD TALIENTO would testify before the Grand Jury as a witness for the Government, . . . he would not be . . . indicted. . . . It was further agreed and understood that he, ROBERT EDWARD TALIENTO, would sign a Waiver of Immunity from prosecution before the Grand Jury, and that, if he eventually testified as a witness for the Government at the trial of the defendant, JOHN GIGLIO, he would not be prosecuted."

[Footnote 3]

Golden's affidavit reads, in part, as follows:

"Mr. DiPaola . . . advised that Mr. Taliento had not been granted immunity, but that he had not indicted him because Robert Taliento was very young at the time of the alleged occurrence, and obviously had been overreached by the defendant Giglio."

[Footnote 4]

The Hoey affidavit, standing alone, contains at least an implication that the Government would reward the cooperation of the witness, and hence tends to confirm, rather than refute, the existence of some understanding for leniency.

FAQs

What happened in Giglio v United States? ›

The evidence indicated that the prosecution failed to disclose that it promised a key witness immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony against Giglio. The district court denied Giglio's motion for a new trial, finding that the error did not affect the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Why is Giglio v us important? ›

The case extended the Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland, requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel. As a result of this case, the term Giglio material is sometimes used to refer to any information pertaining to deals that witnesses in a criminal case may have entered into with the government.

What is the Giglio rule? ›

Under the law, prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could call into question the. credibility of an individual testifying in trial or impede an investigation. This constitutional requirement applies to all witnesses, including law enforcement officers, in order to ensure a defendant gets a fair trial.

What is the significance of the Giglio decision for law enforcement officers? ›

Subsequently, in the 1972 Giglio v. United States case, the court held that exculpatory evidence also includes information that can be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including police officers.

What is the Brady decision? ›

The Brady decision ruled that the defense has the right to examine all evidence that may be of an exculpatory nature. The prosecution will not only release evidence that the defendant might be guilty of a crime but also release all evidence that might show that the defendant is innocent as well.

What is a Brady violation in US law? ›

In general, a “Brady violation” occurs when a prosecutor fails to provide a defendant or criminal defense attorneys with any evidence that is favorable or helpful to a defendant's case.

What are Brady and Giglio obligations? ›

The Brady-Giglio policy requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment.

What is meant by Giglio material and give an example? ›

A Giglio letter is a document written by a prosecutor when he or she finds out about a law enforcement officer who may not be credible on the stand. With this documented lack of credibility, the law enforcement officer is very unlikely to be used as a witness in a trial.

What is Brady material in a criminal case? ›

Thus, Brady material is evidence discovered – but suppressed – by the prosecution that would have helped the defendant in some way, by proving his or her innocence, impeaching the credibility of a witness, or reducing his or her sentence.

What's the difference between Brady and Giglio? ›

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that prosecutors must provide exculpatory information to defense counsel, and in Giglio v. United States, it extended the holding to include information suggesting a witness may not be credible.

What Giglio means? ›

noun. lily [noun] a type of tall plant grown from a bulb, with white or coloured flowers. (Translation of giglio from the PASSWORD Italian–English Dictionary © 2014 K Dictionaries Ltd)

What is the Brady rule example? ›

Examples of Brady material that must be disclosed include: Inconsistent descriptions by different witnesses of the criminal or the crime. Pending charges against the police informant.

What is an example of a Brady violation? ›

In courtrooms across America, prosecutors regularly withhold evidence from the defense that could blow holes in their cases. That's a violation of the Brady doctrine, based on a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that requires them to disclose any information favorable to the defense.

Why is it called the Brady list? ›

A Brady List is a watch list that prosecutors use to keep track of police officers who have engaged in or have been accused of misconduct. The name comes from a 1963 US Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland, the first case to establish them.

Is the Brady list legal? ›

These notifications are called Brady alerts. The Court held that Brady alerts to prosecutors are permissible and best harmonize Brady and the Pitchess statutes. However, in California, police personnel records that may qualify for listing an officer in a Brady list are still confidential with few exceptions.

What happened in Brady v United States? ›

United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) A guilty plea is not unconstitutionally compelled when a defendant pleads guilty because they would prefer a certain or probable lesser penalty to the risk of a greater penalty.

What happens if the Brady rule is violated? ›

Consequences of a Brady violation can include having a conviction vacated, as well as disciplinary actions against the prosecutor. There are three components to establishing a Brady violation. First, the prosecution must have suppressed evidence or information, meaning that something was not turned over to the defense.

Is the Brady rule still in effect? ›

The interim provisions of the Brady Law became effective on February 28, 1994, and ceased to apply on November 30, 1998. While the interim provisions of the Brady Law apply only to handguns, the permanent provisions of the Brady Law apply to all firearms.

What is a Brady Giglio violation? ›

A Giglio or Brady list is a list compiled usually by a prosecutor's office or a police department containing the names and details of law enforcement officers who have had sustained incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue placing their credibility into question.

Is the Brady Act unconstitutional? ›

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

How is the Brady Bill Unconstitutional? ›

Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly. As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.

What is the remedy for a Brady violation? ›

Remedies for a Brady Violation

If a Brady violation is discovered before a defendant's trial, then the defense attorney can file motions challenging the evidence and charges themselves or the way they will be presented at trial.

What is the purpose of Brady? ›

Since its enactment in 1994, the Brady Background Check System has blocked approximately 4 million prohibited purchasers from obtaining a firearm. The signing of the Brady Bill was only the beginning.

How do I get off the Brady list? ›

Formal notice should be sent to the officer about their inclusion on the list. The existing Brady list should be reviewed to determine whether the entries actually are Brady material. If they are, the listed officers should have an opportunity to request their names be removed.

Is the material evidencing the proposition? ›

FACTUM PROBANS - the material evidencing the proposition. It is the fact by which the factum probandum is established. Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is determined in accordance with the law in force at the time the evidence is presented.

How do you win a trial? ›

Tips for Success in the Courtroom
  1. Meet Your Deadlines. ...
  2. Choose a Judge or Jury Trial. ...
  3. Learn the Elements of Your Case. ...
  4. Make Sure Your Evidence Is Admissible. ...
  5. Prepare a Trial Notebook.
  6. Learn the Ropes.
  7. Watch Some Trials. ...
  8. Be Respectful.

What is material matter perjury? ›

Elements Of Perjury -- Materiality. The false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false statement is material if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed." Kungys v.

What kind of evidence tends to prove a defendant's innocence? ›

Exculpatory evidence is any reasonable evidence that tends to show the defendant's innocence.

Which evidence is exculpatory? ›

What is exculpatory evidence? The United States Supreme Court has held that exculpatory evidence is any evidence that is favorable to the defendant on issues of guilt or punishment.

What is exculpatory evidence examples? ›

Exculpatory evidence includes any evidence that may prove a defendant's innocence. Examples of exculpatory evidence include an alibi, such as witness testimony that a defendant was somewhere else when the crime occurred.

What does Brady mean in legal terms? ›

A Brady motion is a defendant's request that the prosecution in a California criminal case turns over any potentially “exculpatory” evidence or evidence that may be favorable to the accused.

What are the central issues involved an underlying Brady violation? ›

The American Bar Association has instructed that a Brady violation has three elements: 1) the information must be favorable to the accused; 2) the information must have been suppressed by the government either willfully or inadvertently; and 3) prejudice must have ensued sufficient to undermine confidence in the ...

What does Brady motion mean? ›

A Brady motion is filed to compel the prosecution to turn over any favorable exculpatory evidence. In other words, a Brady motion is a defendant's request that the prosecution in a California criminal case hand over any potentially “exculpatory” evidence that might be favorable to the defense.

Where does the name Giglio come from? ›

Italian: from the personal name Giglio from giglio 'lily' (from Latin lilium) a plant considered to symbolize the qualities of candor and purity.

What constitutes vindictive prosecution? ›

vindictive prosecution where the prosecutor increased the charges against the defendant from a misdemeanor to a felony after the defendant pled not guilty and refused to waive his rights to be tried by a district judge or a jury.

Do defendants have specific constitutional rights to discovery? ›

In the 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in a criminal case, the accused has a constitutional right to discover exculpatory evidence held by the prosecution.

Why is it called a Brady violation? ›

The term comes from the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.

What rule did Tom Brady change? ›

BOSTON (CBS) -- Over the past decade-plus, Tom Brady has incorrectly been labeled as the catalyst for a rule change that bans defensive players from hitting quarterbacks below the knees. It's come to be known as the "Tom Brady Rule," based on Bernard Pollard's infamous hit in 2008.

Does the Defence have to disclose evidence? ›

The defence also have to disclose to the prosecutor and the court advance details of any witnesses they intend to call at a trial (see paragraph 14 below).

Why is exculpatory evidence important? ›

In criminal law, exculpatory evidence is evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant. In other words, the evidence is favorable to the defendant. In contrast to it, inculpatory evidence tends to stress guilt.

What is it called when you withhold evidence? ›

Spoliation. Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.

What is a states Brady list? ›

Brady lists arose from U.S. Supreme Court cases that held prosecutors must disclose to the defense any exculpatory evidence – including evidence that could be used to impeach a prosecution witness. Impeachment evidence can include dishonesty, bias, or any other misconduct relevant to the facts of the case.

What happened in Brady vs Maryland? ›

7–2 decision for Brady

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's suppression of evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that according the Maryland state law, the confession would not exonerate Brady, so a remand only for reconsidering his punishment was proper.

What does Giglio impaired mean? ›

Brady-Giglio Impaired means that a police officer has engaged in certain qualifying conduct established by the Ramsey County Attorney that may necessitate disclosure as part of the prosecution or defense of a criminal defendant.

› Wex ›

A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that go...

What Is a Brady Violation?

https://www.johntfloyd.com › what-is-a-brady-violation
https://www.johntfloyd.com › what-is-a-brady-violation
This Court has held that the Brady duty to disclose extends to impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, and Brady suppression occurs when the gover...
In our Explainer series, Justice Collaborative lawyers and other legal experts help unpack some of the most complicated issues in the criminal justice system. W...

What is Brady material in a criminal case? ›

Thus, Brady material is evidence discovered – but suppressed – by the prosecution that would have helped the defendant in some way, by proving his or her innocence, impeaching the credibility of a witness, or reducing his or her sentence.

What Giglio means? ›

noun. lily [noun] a type of tall plant grown from a bulb, with white or coloured flowers. (Translation of giglio from the PASSWORD Italian–English Dictionary © 2014 K Dictionaries Ltd)

What happened in Brady vs Maryland? ›

7–2 decision for Brady

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's suppression of evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that according the Maryland state law, the confession would not exonerate Brady, so a remand only for reconsidering his punishment was proper.

What happened in United States v Bagley? ›

The Court held that prosecutor's failure to assist a defendant by disclosing evidence that might be helpful in conducting cross-examination was a constitutional error only if the evidence was material in the sense that its suppression might have affected the outcome of the trial.

What is an example of a Brady violation? ›

In courtrooms across America, prosecutors regularly withhold evidence from the defense that could blow holes in their cases. That's a violation of the Brady doctrine, based on a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that requires them to disclose any information favorable to the defense.

What is a Brady Giglio violation? ›

A Giglio or Brady list is a list compiled usually by a prosecutor's office or a police department containing the names and details of law enforcement officers who have had sustained incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue placing their credibility into question.

What is the Brady Rule example? ›

Examples of Brady material that must be disclosed include: Inconsistent descriptions by different witnesses of the criminal or the crime. Pending charges against the police informant.

Where does the name Giglio come from? ›

Italian: from the personal name Giglio from giglio 'lily' (from Latin lilium) a plant considered to symbolize the qualities of candor and purity.

What constitutes vindictive prosecution? ›

vindictive prosecution where the prosecutor increased the charges against the defendant from a misdemeanor to a felony after the defendant pled not guilty and refused to waive his rights to be tried by a district judge or a jury.

Do defendants have specific constitutional rights to discovery? ›

In the 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in a criminal case, the accused has a constitutional right to discover exculpatory evidence held by the prosecution.

Why was Brady vs Maryland important? ›

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense.

What was Brady angry about? ›

His father, Tom Sr., once told ESPN that during a golf outing when Brady was a kid, Brady chucked a club while losing. Tom Sr. sent him back to the car as punishment. Brady has said he has to work on his anger, whether it's cursing or poor body language.

What happens if the Brady Rule is violated? ›

Consequences of a Brady violation can include having a conviction vacated, as well as disciplinary actions against the prosecutor. There are three components to establishing a Brady violation. First, the prosecution must have suppressed evidence or information, meaning that something was not turned over to the defense.

What happened in United States v Reese? ›

The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage, but it prohibited exclusion from voting on racial grounds. The justices invalidated the operative section 3 of the Enforcement Act since it did not repeat the amendment's words about race, color, and servitude.

What was the ruling in United States v Singleton? ›

Sonya Singleton was convicted of money laundering and conspiring to distribute cocaine. A panel of this court reversed that conviction on the ground the prosecuting attorney violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) when he offered leniency to a co-defendant in exchange for truthful testimony.

What was the outcome of the 1876 case US v Reese? ›

In an 8-1 decision authored by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, the Court concluded that the relevant sections of the Enforcement Act lacked the necessary, limiting language to qualify as enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment.

Videos

1. How to Avoid going to Federal Prison for lying to Federal Agents
(Robert Knauer)
2. Brady/Giglio News Conference
(City of Wichita)
3. A Civil Rights Case Against the Police and Prosecutors: Litigating a Section 1983 Brady Claim
(Illinois Legal Aid Online)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Prof. Nancy Dach

Last Updated: 11/17/2022

Views: 5895

Rating: 4.7 / 5 (77 voted)

Reviews: 92% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Prof. Nancy Dach

Birthday: 1993-08-23

Address: 569 Waelchi Ports, South Blainebury, LA 11589

Phone: +9958996486049

Job: Sales Manager

Hobby: Web surfing, Scuba diving, Mountaineering, Writing, Sailing, Dance, Blacksmithing

Introduction: My name is Prof. Nancy Dach, I am a lively, joyous, courageous, lovely, tender, charming, open person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.