Also known as: exculpatory evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense. Due process requires the prosecution to disclose material exculpatory information to the defense upon request or otherwise. Suppression of such information, whether intentional or inadvertent, violates due process and requires reversal when the evidence is material to guilt or punishment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Omar, a foreign deckhand seized near a conflict zone, faces indefinite detention after a naval review labels him an enemy courier. A statute bars habeas petitions and limits him to internal reconsideration that refuses late-discovered ship logs and crew statements showing his innocence. Omar seeks to introduce the logs and statements to challenge the factual basis for his continued detention.
Evelyn Ellison faces charges of tampering with utility meters after the prosecutor obtains an internal audit showing software errors caused the anomalous readings without employee action. The prosecutor keeps the report from defense counsel despite a specific request for all evidence tending to negate guilt. The withheld report would have supplied a non-criminal explanation for the data.
Ethan Evans stands trial for a crime and seeks to introduce a trustworthy out-of-court statement from a witness that directly supports his innocence. The trial court applies strict hearsay rules and excludes the statement. Exclusion deprives Evans of reliable evidence critical to his defense.
Eric Espinoza is convicted after his appointed counsel fails to interview technicians or obtain work-order logs showing others accessed the rebate system. The logs would have pointed to alternative perpetrators. Counsel's omission leaves the defense without readily available evidence undermining the state's case.
Emily Ellis is indicted after the prosecutor possesses but does not present substantial evidence showing she lacked the requisite intent. The grand jury returns the indictment without hearing the favorable information. Ellis later challenges the indictment on due process grounds.
Elise Everly is convicted after the prosecution fails to disclose a report that would have allowed her to impeach a key government witness. The report contains information that could have altered the outcome of the trial. Everly seeks relief on the ground that the suppressed evidence was material.
No. Due process requires disclosure of material exculpatory evidence even without a request when the prosecutor knows or should know the evidence is favorable and material to guilt or punishment.
Supporting sources
No. There is no general constitutional duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, and an indictment will not be dismissed solely because the prosecutor failed to do so.
…to have determined the outcome. Accordingly, the appropriate test for prejudice finds its roots in the test for materiality of exculpatory information not disclosed to the defense by the prosecution, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S., at 104, 112-113, 96 S.Ct., at 2397, 2401-2402, and in the test for materiality of testimony made…
…to introduce crucial, relevant evidence: " In the absence of any valid state justification, exclusion of this kind of exculpatory evidence
…foreign commerce]." As the Court interpreted the presumption, it placed upon a defendant only the obligation of presenting some exculpatory evidence
…hearing, and the preliminary hearing affords the accused rights to appear, be represented, cross-examine witnesses, present
…was malicious and without probable cause—at least where there is no independent allegation that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory information
Supporting sources
No. The obligation applies to trial, not post-conviction proceedings, and a convicted offender has no freestanding federal due process right to obtain post-conviction DNA testing where state procedures are not fundamentally unfair.
Supporting sources
Counsel's failure to discover or present exculpatory information can constitute deficient performance under Strickland, and prejudice is measured by whether there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different but for the omission.
Supporting sources
Absolute immunity protects a prosecutor from civil liability for decisions to prosecute, even when based on claims that exculpatory information was withheld from the grand jury or court, unless the withholding falls outside the advocacy function.
Supporting sources