Also known as: exculpatory materials · Brady material · exculpatory evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence favorable to the accused that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment. The prosecution must disclose such material upon request or when it comes to the prosecutor's attention. Suppression of the evidence violates due process regardless of good or bad faith.
Naveen, held as an enemy combatant at a remote U.S. base, learns of new digital logs showing he never accessed the targeted systems. The review board refuses to consider the logs. Naveen petitions for habeas relief to introduce the material and contest the factual basis for his indefinite detention.
Mackenzie faces tampering charges after a utility investigation. The prosecutor receives an internal audit showing software errors caused the meter anomalies without employee action. The prosecutor continues the case on access evidence alone and does not turn over the report to defense counsel.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ethan faces assault charges after a bar fight. A reliable witness statement recorded shortly after the incident describes another person starting the altercation. The trial court applies the hearsay rule to exclude the statement. Ethan argues the exclusion deprives him of a fair opportunity to present critical evidence.
Elise is charged with deliberate homicide after a fatal shooting. She seeks to introduce evidence of extreme intoxication to show she lacked the required mental state. The state statute precludes the evidence. Elise contends the categorical bar prevents her from presenting material evidence negating an element of the offense.
Emanuel is convicted on drug charges after a confidential informant testifies. The defense later learns the informant received a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation. The prosecutor never disclosed the deal. Emanuel moves to set aside the conviction on the ground that the withheld information was material to the informant's credibility.
Eva is charged with possession of a controlled substance found in a car she occupied with three others. A statutory presumption treats the presence of drugs as possession by every occupant. Eva offers testimony that the drugs belonged to one passenger alone. The trial court instructs the jury on the presumption without allowing the defense evidence to rebut it.
No. The obligation arises whenever the prosecutor knows of evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense, whether or not the defense has made a request. The duty is triggered by the prosecutor's knowledge of the information.
No. If the prosecutor knows of scientific evidence that eliminates any factual link between the defendant and the charged conduct, filing or continuing the case violates the duty to refrain from prosecuting charges known to lack probable cause.
No. The prosecutor must still disclose information known to tend to negate guilt unless a protective order is obtained from the court. The privilege assertion alone does not suspend the disclosure obligation.
No. The constitutional obligation to disclose material exculpatory evidence applies to trial proceedings. A convicted defendant has no freestanding due process right to post-conviction discovery of such material.
…to introduce crucial, relevant evidence: " In the absence of any valid state justification, exclusion of this kind of exculpatory evidence deprives a defendant of the basic right to have the prosecutor's case encounter and survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing." 476 U. S., at 690-691 (emphasis added) (internal…