
Defendants’
Rights to Exculpatory Evidence: Brady v. Maryland
It is a feature of our criminal justice
system that each defendant must receive a fair trial. For that to happen, the defendant’s
attorney must have access to evidence that tends to demonstrate his client’s innocence.
To ensure access to this evidence, called
exculpatory evidence, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors
must disclose “exculpatory” evidence, which means evidence that tends to
demonstrate innocence. This rule was announced in the 1963 case, Brady v.
Maryland.[1]
In that case, John Brady and his companion Charles Boblit were accused of
robbing and killing another man. They were arrested, tried separately, and each
convicted of murder. To avoid the death penalty, Brady took the stand and
admitted to participating in the crime, but claimed that Boblit killed the
victim. To support his client’s claim, Brady’s defense attorney sought to
examine all statements that Boblit made to the prosecutor. Although the
prosecutor gave the defense attorney access to these statements, he did not provide
him with the one statement, dated July 9, 1958, in which Boblit admitted to
having committed the murder.[2]
To that point, a defendant’s rights were
only considered violated when a prosecutor behaved in bad faith by
intentionally concealing exculpatory evidence or intentionally allowing false
testimony at trial. The Court’s decision in Brady
altered the criminal procedure landscape. Although the state prosecutor did not
conceal the statement of Boblit out of trickery or intent to deceive, the Court
reasoned that any concealment of exculpatory evidence violated Brady’s right to
a fair trial and established the rule that prosecutors must turn over, upon
request, all favorable evidence that “materially” relates to a defendant’s
guilt or appropriate punishment.[3]
Other Examples
The
Supreme Court in Brady did not define
“material” or offer guidance on how a defense attorney’s request for
exculpatory evidence should be worded. Later decisions have attempted to clear up
any confusion.
In Giglio
v. United States, the prosecution’s primary witness provided nearly all the
evidence that established the defendant’s guilt. However, the prosecution did
not disclose the fact that his testimony was obtained in exchange for an offer
of leniency. The Supreme Court determined that this leniency offer was
“material” and withholding that information from the jury and from defense
counsel violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The case established
that evidence is “materially” exculpatory if it would have reasonably affected
the judgment of the jury. Here, the evidence of the leniency offer could have
affected the jury’s conclusion because it could have cast into doubt the
witness’ credibility.[4]
The Court further ruled that it did not matter whether the prosecution
intentionally withheld this evidence. Even if it were withheld negligently
without bad faith, it still violated the defendant’s due process rights. The
defendant was therefore entitled to a new trial.
“Material” has been subsequently defined
as “a reasonable probability that if the
evidence had been disclosed to the defense, the outcome of the trial would have
been different.” The “reasonable probability” language must be sufficient
to undermine the confidence in the outcome of the case.
In United
States v. Bagley, the government charged a defendant with firearm and narcotics
offenses and the defendant was eventually convicted of the narcotics offenses. The
prosecution did not disclose that the primary witness in the firearm
prosecution was a paid informant. This fact, however, was not considered
material to the narcotics offense conviction. The Court reasoned that there was
not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different
because the informant was only compensated for testimony relating to the firearm
offense, which the defendant was acquitted of in any case.[5]
The Brady
case itself did not set out how a defense attorney’s request for materially
exculpatory evidence should be worded. Now, however, the Supreme Court has made
clear that prosecutors must turn over all materially exculpatory evidence in
all circumstances, even when defendants do not ask for the evidence.[6]
How Prosecutors Satisfy
Brady and What Happens if They Don’t
Some
prosecuting agencies issue guidelines on what evidence prosecutors must
disclose and how they should disclose it.[7]
Other prosecuting agencies have adopted “open file” policies, where a defendant
can access a prosecutor’s entire case file.[8]
There are several possible consequences
if a prosecutor does not comply with her obligations under Brady. A court can order a new trial if the failure to disclose the
information could have made a difference in the initial trial. Second, the
prosecutor may face disciplinary actions for violating the responsibility to
disclose exculpatory evidence. For example, former Durham County District
Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred, in part, for failing to disclose
exculpatory evidence in a high-profile Duke University lacrosse case.[9]
Finally, if a court finds a pattern of Brady violations in a district
attorney’s office, a prosecuting attorney could be subjected to civil rights lawsuits.[10]
Brady
v. Maryland is a
landmark criminal procedure case that rivals Miranda v. Arizona in importance. It seeks to ensure that criminal
defendants enjoy fair opportunities to defend themselves by providing them
access to information that tends to show their innocence.
[1]
373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)
[2]
Id.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)
[5]
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S.
667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)
[6]
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97,
96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)
[7]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/memorandum-department-prosecutors
[8]
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263,
283 n.23, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 1949, 144 L.Ed.2d 286, 303 (1999)
[10]
Dahlia Lithwick, “Clarence Thomas writes one of the meanest Supreme Court
decisions ever,” retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/04/cruel_but_not_unusual.html