Brady Violations
Discovery in a criminal prosecution is not entirely reciprocal. The prosecution most likely has more available resources compared to the defense. Processes, such as a police investigation, may be able to uncover a more significant deal of materials that a defendant, a private entity, usually cannot. Under Brady, the prosecution must hand exculpatory evidence to the defense upon the defense’s request. Exculpatory evidence includes witnesses, forensic finds, and artifacts. Also, impeachment evidence is considered exculpatory and is treated the same when determining if the prosecution caused a Brady violation as a truck accident lawyer can share.
In Brady, Brady and a companion were guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 84 (1963). Brady argued that his companion was guilty of the murder. Id. Brady’s counsel asked to see extrajudicial statements of the companion, to which the prosecution showed counsel several statements. Id. However, one statement had the companion admitting to the actual homicide, but the prosecution withheld this statement until Brady was tried, convicted, sentenced, and had his conviction affirmed. Id. The Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id. at 87. Thus, the prosecution must turn over evidence upon the defense’s request if that evidence is material to guilt or punishment.
Despite the standard around evidence material to guilt or punishment, it is a straightforward test on the government. This may lead to miscarriages of justice. An appellate court may decide whether the trial judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney made a mistake during the trial. If the appellate Court determines a mistake, they are tasked to determine whether the error, or errors, require a reversal of a defendant’s conviction. Generally, a conviction will not be reserved if the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights or the trial outcome. This “harmless error” analysis is incorporated in a potential Brady violation. Because a violation occurs when the prosecution does not turn over evidence that is material to culpability or punishment at the defense’s request, this would exceed the scope of harmless error. Suppose this error led to the conviction of a defendant. In that case, the reversal of the conviction is likely warranted because the defendant’s substantial rights and the outcome of the trial were affected. However, if the evidence defense requested is not material to culpability or guilt, the defendant’s substantial rights and the trial’s outcome are unaffected. Thus, the conviction would not be reversed since there is only a harmless error.
Brady demonstrates how discovery is only partially reciprocal because the prosecution contains more resources when trying a case. Because of this imbalance, the defense can request exculpatory evidence if the evidence is material to the outcome of the trial or a defendant’s guilt. If the prosecution does not give the defense exculpatory evidence upon its request, it violates the defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clause. Ultimately, Brady violations are a countermeasure to ensure that a defendant is not deprived of liberty through deliberate deception. If you have more questions about this topic, contact a lawyer near you for more information.
Thanks to Eglet Adams for their insight on Brady violations.
