Also known as: Brady material · Brady violation · Brady claim · Brady rule · Brady doctrine · Brady disclosure
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine requiring the prosecution to disclose evidence that is favorable to the accused because it is exculpatory or impeaching. The evidence must have been suppressed by the state and its nondisclosure must have prejudiced the defendant by creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
After Maria Lopez is convicted of robbery, her lawyer learns the prosecutor possessed a police report naming another suspect. The report was never disclosed. Lopez moves to vacate the conviction, arguing the suppressed evidence creates a reasonable probability of acquittal.
Benjamin Brooks is convicted of assault based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. The prosecutor never turned over the witness's earlier statement that directly contradicted the trial testimony and pointed to another perpetrator. After conviction Brooks obtains the statement and seeks relief on due process grounds.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
During trial of drug charges against Carlos Rivera the state withholds prior inconsistent statements made by its key informant. Rivera is convicted. Post-trial discovery of the statements leads him to seek reversal on the ground that the evidence was material impeachment material under Brady.
Prosecutors do not tell the defense that the main witness against Derek Hale received a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony. Hale learns of the deal after conviction and petitions for relief, claiming the suppressed impeachment evidence undermines confidence in the verdict.
Officer notes containing a description that does not match Anthony Soto are kept from defense counsel. Soto is convicted on eyewitness identification. He later obtains the notes and argues the nondisclosure was prejudicial under Brady because it would have supported misidentification.
The state possesses a lab report excluding defendant Rachel Grant as the source of biological evidence yet fails to disclose it before trial. Grant is convicted. She seeks a new trial, demonstrating the report was favorable, suppressed, and material to the outcome.
A defendant must show that the evidence was favorable because it is exculpatory or impeaching, that the state suppressed it willfully or inadvertently, and that prejudice resulted because there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have differed had the evidence been disclosed.
Supporting sources
Yes. The reasonable-probability standard for materiality applies equally to exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
Supporting sources
Yes. Suppression of material exculpatory evidence before a plea can render the plea involuntary and permit withdrawal because the defendant must make an informed decision.
Supporting sources
No. The duty exists even without a defense request and applies to material evidence favorable to the accused.
Supporting sources
No. Only evidence that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment must be disclosed.
Supporting sources
…79 Harv. L. Rev. 935, 1041-1044 (1966). See also Bram v. United States , 168 U. S. 532, 562 (1897). [^maj-38]: Cf. Betts v. Brady , 316 U. S. 455 (1942), and the recurrent inquiry into special circumstances it necessitated. See generally, Kamisar, Betts v. Brady Twenty Years Later: The Right to Counsel and Due…