Also known as: materially exculpatory evidence · Brady material
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment. Suppression of such evidence by the prosecution violates due process regardless of whether the nondisclosure was intentional or inadvertent.
Marcus Mitchell, a plant supervisor at Magnolia Foods, was convicted of arson after a factory fire. Before trial the prosecutor received an insurance investigator's report concluding that a wiring defect caused the blaze. The prosecutor never turned over the report. After conviction Marcus moves to vacate on due process grounds. The court grants relief because the report was favorable to the defense and material to guilt.
Musa Mensah was convicted of sexual assault in state court. Years later he seeks post-conviction DNA testing of evidence the state still holds. The prosecutor refuses, citing state procedures. Musa claims a federal due process right to the testing. The court denies relief because the obligation to disclose material exculpatory evidence applies only at trial.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. The obligation is affirmative and exists whether the defense makes a specific request, a general request, or no request at all.
Supporting sources
No. The violation occurs regardless of whether the nondisclosure was intentional, negligent, or inadvertent.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the prosecution suppresses favorable material evidence before a plea, the defendant may withdraw the plea because the nondisclosure undermines the knowing and voluntary character of the plea.
Supporting sources
Evidence is material when there is a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result, including a different plea decision or sentence, or when nondisclosure undermines confidence in the outcome.
Supporting sources