Brady v. Maryland

Brady v. Maryland
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18–19, 1963 Decided May 13, 1963
Full case name	Brady v. State of Maryland
Citations	373 U.S. 83 (more) 83 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215; 1963 U. S. LEXIS 1615
Prior history	Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland
Holding
Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. "
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
Majority	Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, Goldberg
Concurrence	White
Dissent	Harlan, joined by Black
Laws applied
U. S. Const. amend. XIV

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Procedural History

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment.

The Court's Decision

The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling was affirmed.

A defendant's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.”^[1] Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution's witnesses,^[2] and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.^[3]

Aftermath

Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops." Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a confirmed record of knowingly lying in an official capacity.^[4] Police officers fear that prosecutors and police supervisors will use access to their personnel files to abuse the Brady-cop designation, by labeling officers as Brady cops in order to punish them outside of formal disciplinary channels and those channels’ attendant procedural protections. Brady has become not only a matter of defendants’ due process trial rights, but also of police officers’ due process employment rights. Officers and their unions have used litigation, legislation, and informal political pressure to push back on Brady’s application to their personnel files. This conflict over Brady’s application has split the prosecution team, pitting prosecutors against police officers, and police management against police labor.^[5] Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant.^[6]

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 373
• Brady material
• Connick v. Thompson
• Giglio v. United States
• Jencks Act
• Jencks v. United States
• Pitchess motion
• Testilying

Notes

1. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 296 (1999).
2. People v. Johnson, 38 Cal.App.3d 228, 113 Cal.Rptr. 303 (1974).
3. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004).
4. Kamb, Lewis; Nalder, Eric (January 29, 2008). "Cops who lie don't always lose jobs". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
5. "Brady’s Blind Spot: Impeachment Evidence in Police Personnel Files and the Battle Splitting the Prosecution Team" (PDF). Stanford Law School. 2014-08-29. Retrieved 2016-02-09.
6. Banks, 540 U.S., at 694, 698.

Further reading

• Clark, Garry (September 2005). "The Grand Jury: Phase: I — The Murder of Marsa Gipson".
• Gershman, Bennett L. (January 1, 2006). "Reflections on Brady v. Maryland". South Texas Law Review (Pace University School of Law) 47: 685.
• Hochman, Robert (1996). "Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials". The University of Chicago Law Review (The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 4) 63 (4): 1673–1705. doi:10.2307/1600284. JSTOR 1600284.
• Hooper, Laural L.; Marsh, Jennifer E.; and Yeh, Brian. Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United States District and State Courts’ Rules, Orders, and Policies: Report to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Federal Judicial Center, October 2004.
• Levenson, Laurie L. "Discovery From the Trenches: The Future of Brady". UCLA Law Review Discovery 60: 74. Retrieved April 8, 2014.
• Sundby, Scott E. (2002). "Fallen Superheroes and Constitutional Mirages: The Tale of Brady v. Maryland". McGeorge Law Review 33. doi:10.2139/ssrn.361040.
• "Successful Brady/Napue Cases" (PDF). Habeas Assistance and Training 09/09. Capital Defense Network. September 27, 2009. Retrieved January 2, 2013.

External links

• ^ 373 U. S. 83 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.