Legal Definitions - Brady material

Brady material refers to evidence that is favorable to a criminal defendant and that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose to the defense. This legal principle originated from the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland.

The core idea behind Brady material is to ensure a fair trial by preventing the prosecution from withholding information that could help the defendant. This duty applies whether the evidence suggests the defendant is innocent (known as exculpatory evidence) or if it could be used to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness (known as impeaching evidence).

The prosecution must disclose such material even if they did not intentionally hide it, and even if the defense does not specifically ask for it. They have an affirmative duty to search their own files and those of any law enforcement agencies involved in the case for this type of evidence. If the prosecution fails to disclose Brady material and this failure harms the defendant's case, it can lead to a new trial or the overturning of a conviction.

Here are some examples illustrating what constitutes Brady material:

• Example 1: Exculpatory Evidence

  Imagine a case where a defendant is on trial for armed robbery. The prosecution's main evidence is eyewitness testimony. However, the police department, which worked with the prosecution, has a report from an anonymous tipster who called *before* the robbery occurred, identifying a different individual by name as planning a similar robbery in the same neighborhood. This report was never shared with the defense.

  How it illustrates Brady material: This anonymous tip identifying another potential suspect is exculpatory evidence because it points away from the defendant's guilt. If the prosecution (or the police working on their behalf) possessed this information and failed to disclose it, it would be considered suppressed Brady material. Its disclosure could have allowed the defense to investigate an alternative suspect, potentially changing the outcome of the trial.

• Example 2: Impeaching Evidence

  Consider a drug trafficking trial where a police officer is the primary witness, testifying about observing the defendant engaging in suspicious activity and finding illegal substances. Unknown to the defense, the prosecutor's office has access to internal affairs records showing that this particular officer has a documented history of making false statements in official reports during previous investigations, but they did not disclose these records.

  How it illustrates Brady material: The officer's disciplinary history is impeaching evidence because it directly undermines their credibility. The defense could have used this information to question the officer's truthfulness on the witness stand, potentially leading the jury to disbelieve their testimony. The prosecution's failure to disclose these records would be a suppression of Brady material.

• Example 3: Evidence Affecting Alibi

  In a murder trial, the prosecution's case hinges on establishing a precise time of death for the victim, which aligns with the defendant's known whereabouts. The medical examiner initially produced a preliminary report estimating the time of death to be several hours later than what was presented at trial. This earlier, unreleased report would have completely supported the defendant's alibi, making it impossible for them to have committed the crime. The prosecution only provided a later, revised report to the defense that fit their timeline.

  How it illustrates Brady material: The initial medical examiner's report is favorable to the defendant because it directly supports their alibi and contradicts a critical element of the prosecution's case. By withholding this original report, the prosecution suppressed Brady material. Had the defense received this evidence, they could have used it to challenge the prosecution's timeline and strengthen their alibi, potentially leading to a different verdict.