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|
|Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. "|
|Majority||Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, Goldberg|
|Dissent||Harlan, joined by Black|
|U. S. Const. amend. XIV|
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
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.” Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution's witnesses, and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.
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. 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.
See also 
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 373
- Brady material
- Jencks Act
- Jencks v. United States
- Giglio v. United States
- Connick v. Thompson
- 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)
- Kamb, Lewis; Nalder, Eric (January 29, 2008). "Cops who lie don't always lose jobs". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U. S. 668, 694, 698 (2004)
Further reading 
- Floyd, John (June 2012). Cases of Brady Violations and Prosecutorial Misconduct.
- Clark, Garry (September 2005). The Grand Jury: Phase: I — The Murder of Marsa Gipson.
- 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.
- 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. Capital Defense Network. Updated September 27, 2009. Retrieved January 2, 2013.