Brady v. Maryland

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
Brady v. Maryland
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
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
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 sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity.[4] 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.[5]

See also

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. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. ↑ Banks, 540 U.S., at 694, 698.

Further reading

External links

  • ^ 373 U. S. 83 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Brady_v._Maryland&oldid=1833354"