On June 27, 1958, a 25-year-old Maryland man named John Leo Brady and his 24-year-old companion Charles Donald Boblit murdered 53-year-old acquaintance William Brooks. Both men were convicted and sentenced to death. Brady admitted to being involved in the murder, but he claimed that Boblit had done the actual killing and that they had stolen Brooks' car ahead of a planned bank robbery but had not planned to kill him.[4] The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit (the men were tried separately), 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. Brady's lawyer, E. Clinton Bamberger Jr., appealed the case to the Supreme Court, hoping for a new trial.[5]
Decisionedit
The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." The Court determined that under Maryland law, the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to his level of punishment. Thus, the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling was affirmed – Brady would receive a new sentencing hearing but not a new trial.[5]
William O. Douglas wrote: "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment... Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair."[5]
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."[6] Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution's witnesses[7] and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.[8]
Aftermathedit
Brady was given a new hearing, where his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.[5] Brady was ultimately paroled. He moved to Florida, where he worked as a truck driver, started a family, and did not re-offend.[5][9]
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.[10] This requirement has been understood by lawyers and jurists as requiring prosecutors to maintain lists, known as Brady lists, of police officers who are not credible witnesses and whose involvement in a case undermines a prosecution's integrity.[11]
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 creates a divide between prosecutors and police officers, and between police management and police labor.[12] Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a non-police witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant.[13]
In United States v. Bagley (1985), the Court narrowed the reach of Brady by stating the suppressed evidence had to be "exculpatory" and "material" for a violation to result in the reversal of a conviction.[4]Harry Blackmun wrote in Bagley that "only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."[4]
Subsequent casesedit
Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482 (1975)
Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009)
District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009)
^ abcCohen, Andrew (May 13, 2013). "Prosecutors Shouldn't Be Hiding Evidence From Defendants". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 18, 2018.
^ abcdeLanger, Emily (February 18, 2017). "E. Clinton Bamberger Jr., lawyer who won 'Brady rule' for criminal defendants, dies at 90". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2018.
^Dybdahl, Thomas L. (June 24, 2018). "The Brady Rule: How a Botched Robbery Led to a Legal Landmark". The Marshall Project. Retrieved October 2, 2023.
^Kamb, Lewis; Nalder, Eric (January 29, 2008). "Cops who lie don't always lose jobs". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
^Barrett, Dan (September 18, 2020). "Brady lists track police with credibility issues. We're requesting the lists". American Civil Liberties Union Connecticut. Retrieved April 12, 2021.
^"Brady's Blind Spot: Impeachment Evidence in Police Personnel Files and the Battle Splitting the Prosecution Team" (PDF). Stanford Law School. August 29, 2014. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
Clark, Garry (September 2005). . Archived from the original on February 2, 2011.
Gershman, Bennett L. (January 1, 2006). "Reflections on Brady v. Maryland". South Texas Law Review. 47. Pace University School of Law: 685.
Hochman, Robert (1996). "Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials". The University of Chicago Law Review. 63 (4). The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 4: 1673–1705. doi:10.2307/1600284. JSTOR 1600284.
Hooper, Laural L.; Marsh, Jennifer E.; and Yeh, Brian. , Federal Judicial Center, October 2004.
Levenson, Laurie L. (February 10, 2013). "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.
(PDF). Habeas Assistance and Training 09/09. Capital Defense Network. September 27, 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 13, 2014. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
External linksedit
Text of Brady v. Maryland, 373U.S. 83 (1963) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
The Brady List, a public-facing database of information including police misconduct, public complaints and use-of-force reports
April 11, 2024
brady, maryland, 1970, supreme, court, case, coerced, plea, bargains, brady, united, states, 1963, landmark, united, states, supreme, court, case, that, established, that, prosecution, must, turn, over, evidence, that, might, exonerate, defendant, exculpatory,. For the 1970 Supreme Court case on coerced plea bargains see Brady v United States Brady v Maryland 373 U S 83 1963 was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant exculpatory evidence to the defense 1 4 The prosecution failed to do so for Brady and he was convicted Brady challenged his conviction arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 2 3 Brady v MarylandSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 18 19 1963Decided May 13 1963Full case nameJohn L Brady v State of MarylandCitations373 U S 83 more 83 S Ct 1194 10 L Ed 2d 215 1963 U S LEXIS 1615Case historyPriorBrady v State 226 Md 422 174 A 2d 167 1961 cert granted 371 U S 812 1962 HoldingWithholding of evidence violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment Court membershipChief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black William O DouglasTom C Clark John M Harlan IIWilliam J Brennan Jr Potter StewartByron White Arthur GoldbergCase opinionsMajorityDouglas joined by Warren Clark Brennan Stewart GoldbergConcurrenceWhiteDissentHarlan joined by BlackLaws appliedU S Const amend XIVWikisource has original text related to this article Brady v Maryland Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 3 Aftermath 4 Subsequent cases 5 See also 6 References 7 Sources 8 External linksBackground editOn June 27 1958 a 25 year old Maryland man named John Leo Brady and his 24 year old companion Charles Donald Boblit murdered 53 year old acquaintance William Brooks Both men were convicted and sentenced to death Brady admitted to being involved in the murder but he claimed that Boblit had done the actual killing and that they had stolen Brooks car ahead of a planned bank robbery but had not planned to kill him 4 The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit the men were tried separately 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 Brady s lawyer E Clinton Bamberger Jr appealed the case to the Supreme Court hoping for a new trial 5 Decision editThe Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment The Court determined that under Maryland law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to his level of punishment Thus the Maryland Court of Appeals ruling was affirmed Brady would receive a new sentencing hearing but not a new trial 5 William O Douglas wrote We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair 5 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 6 Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution s witnesses 7 and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness 8 Aftermath editBrady was given a new hearing where his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment 5 Brady was ultimately paroled He moved to Florida where he worked as a truck driver started a family and did not re offend 5 9 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 10 This requirement has been understood by lawyers and jurists as requiring prosecutors to maintain lists known as Brady lists of police officers who are not credible witnesses and whose involvement in a case undermines a prosecution s integrity 11 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 creates a divide between prosecutors and police officers and between police management and police labor 12 Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a non police witness such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant 13 In United States v Bagley 1985 the Court narrowed the reach of Brady by stating the suppressed evidence had to be exculpatory and material for a violation to result in the reversal of a conviction 4 Harry Blackmun wrote in Bagley that only if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense the result of the proceeding would have been different A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome 4 Subsequent cases editPitchess v Davis 421 U S 482 1975 Cone v Bell 556 U S 449 2009 District Attorney s Office for the Third Judicial District v Osborne 557 U S 52 2009 Connick v Thompson 2011 Smith v Cain 565 U S 73 Wetzel v Lambert 565 U S 520 2012 Wearry v Cain 2016 Turner v United States 2017 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 373 Brady material Giglio v United States Jencks Act Jencks v United States Pitchess motion Testilying R v Stinchcombe Canadian Supreme Court judgment on a similar subjectReferences edit Criminal Law Cases and Materials 7th ed 2012 Wolters Kluwer Law amp Business John Kaplan Robert Weisberg Guyora Binder ISBN 978 1 4548 0698 1 Kim Jonathan Brady Rule Legal Information Institute Retrieved April 8 2021 Brady v Maryland 373 U S 83 1963 a b c Cohen Andrew May 13 2013 Prosecutors Shouldn t Be Hiding Evidence From Defendants The Atlantic Retrieved March 18 2018 a b c d e Langer Emily February 18 2017 E Clinton Bamberger Jr lawyer who won Brady rule for criminal defendants dies at 90 The Washington Post Retrieved March 18 2018 Strickler v Greene 527 U S 263 296 1999 People v Johnson 38 Cal App 3d 228 113 Cal Rptr 303 1974 Banks v Dretke 540 U S 668 2004 Dybdahl Thomas L June 24 2018 The Brady Rule How a Botched Robbery Led to a Legal Landmark The Marshall Project Retrieved October 2 2023 Kamb Lewis Nalder Eric January 29 2008 Cops who lie don t always lose jobs Seattle Post Intelligencer Retrieved January 2 2013 Barrett Dan September 18 2020 Brady lists track police with credibility issues We re requesting the lists American Civil Liberties Union Connecticut Retrieved April 12 2021 Brady s Blind Spot Impeachment Evidence in Police Personnel Files and the Battle Splitting the Prosecution Team PDF Stanford Law School August 29 2014 Retrieved February 9 2016 Banks 540 U S at 694 698 Sources editClark Garry September 2005 The Grand Jury Phase I The Murder of Marsa Gipson Archived from the original on February 2 2011 Gershman Bennett L January 1 2006 Reflections on Brady v Maryland South Texas Law Review 47 Pace University School of Law 685 Hochman Robert 1996 Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials The University of Chicago Law Review 63 4 The University of Chicago Law Review Vol 63 No 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 February 10 2013 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 Archived from the original PDF on April 13 2014 Retrieved January 2 2013 External links editText of Brady v Maryland 373 U S 83 1963 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio The Brady List a public facing database of information including police misconduct public complaints and use of force reports Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Brady v Maryland amp oldid 1214194966, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
