15 Brady Violation Examples: A Comprehensive Exploration

In the American criminal justice system, fairness and justice are paramount. One significant provision to ensure this is the Brady rule, established in the landmark case Brady v. Maryland in 1963. The rule requires the prosecution to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense, ensuring a fair trial. A violation of this rule, known as a Brady violation, can potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice. In this post, we’ll explore various Brady violation examples to provide an understanding of this critical issue.

Brady violation examples

15 Brady Violation Examples

The Brady Rule Explained

The Brady Rule states that the prosecution must disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant. This rule ensures the defendant’s right to due process, enabling them to mount a robust defense. It applies to both evidence that proves innocence and evidence that could lessen a sentence. Failure to disclose such evidence constitutes a Brady violation.

  1. United States v. Agurs (1976): The defendant, Agurs, was convicted of murder. However, the prosecution failed to disclose the victim’s criminal record, which demonstrated a history of violent behavior. This could have supported Agurs’s self-defense argument. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a Brady violation as the undisclosed evidence was material to the punishment and could have altered the outcome of the case.
  2. Kyles v. Whitley (1995): Curtis Kyles was charged with a murder that took place in a grocery store parking lot. The prosecution withheld multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and police reports that pointed to other suspects. They also failed to disclose inconsistent statements from their key witness. The Supreme Court ruled this a Brady violation, not just for the single piece of withheld evidence, but the cumulative effect of all the undisclosed evidence.
  3. Cone v. Bell (2009): Gary Cone was convicted for a double murder during a robbery. However, the prosecution failed to disclose evidence of Cone’s drug addiction, which could have been used as a mitigating factor during his sentencing. The Supreme Court ruled this a Brady violation, as the undisclosed evidence could have potentially lessened his sentence.
  4. Banks v. Dretke (2004): In this case, the prosecution did not disclose that their key witness, an informant, had been coached to give a false testimony and that another significant witness was a paid informant. The Supreme Court held this as a Brady violation because the evidence could have impeached the credibility of the prosecution’s key witnesses, thus affecting the outcome of the case.
  5. Smith v. Cain (2012): In a murder trial, the prosecutor did not disclose a police report where the key eyewitness had stated that he could not describe the perpetrators. The Supreme Court ruled that the failure to disclose this report was a Brady violation, as it directly impeached the credibility of the eyewitness, who was a crucial component of the prosecution’s case.
  6. Wearry v. Cain (2016): In this case, the prosecution did not disclose information regarding discrepancies in the timeline of the crime given by their key witness. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a Brady violation as the information was material to the case and could have raised significant doubts about the defendant’s guilt.
  7. Milke v. Ryan (2013): Debra Milke was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of a detective, but they did not disclose the detective’s history of misconduct, which could have been used to impeach his credibility. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this as a Brady violation.
  8. People v. Chenault (1979): In this case, the prosecutor failed to disclose that a key witness had initially failed to identify the defendant in a lineup. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled this as a Brady violation.
  9. Brady v. Maryland (1963): The namesake of the Brady Rule, this case involved the prosecution withholding a co-defendant’s confession, which could have affected the sentencing of the defendant. The Supreme Court established the Brady Rule in this case.
  10. United States v. Bagley (1985): The prosecution failed to disclose that their key witnesses were paid informants. The Supreme Court held this as a Brady violation because this information could have been used by the defense to impeach the credibility of the witnesses.
  11. Giglio v. United States (1972): The prosecutor did not disclose to the defense that the key witness had been promised that he would not be prosecuted in return for his testimony. The Supreme Court deemed this as a Brady violation since the agreement could have affected the witness’s credibility.
  12. Strickler v. Greene (1999): In this case, the prosecution did not disclose letters that cast doubt on the credibility of their key witness. The Supreme Court found this to be a Brady violation, as the letters could have been used to impeach the testimony of the witness.
  13. Michael Morton Case (2011): Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife, primarily based on the testimony of an expert witness. It was later discovered that the prosecutor had withheld crucial exculpatory evidence, including the blood-stained bandana found near the crime scene with another man’s DNA. The Brady violation in this case led to Morton’s exoneration after spending nearly 25 years in prison.
  14. Sylvester v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (2016): The defendant, Sylvester, was charged with sexual battery. However, the prosecution failed to disclose a taped interview of the victim in which she described the suspect differently. This information could have cast doubt on Sylvester’s guilt and the 11th Circuit Court ruled it as a Brady violation.
  15. California v. Trombetta (1984): In this case, the police failed to preserve a breath sample in a DUI case, which the defendant could have independently tested. While not a classic Brady case, it falls under the umbrella of the government’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, with the Supreme Court holding that the destruction of the sample violated the defendant’s due process rights.

More Brady violation examples are coming soon…

Implications of Brady Violations

A Brady violation can significantly impact a case. It can lead to the reversal of convictions and new trials, potentially altering the course of a person’s life. Therefore, it’s critical to ensure that all exculpatory evidence is shared with the defense to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

People Also Ask

What Happens if a Brady Violation is Discovered?

If a Brady violation is discovered, the court may order a new trial, dismiss charges, or reverse a conviction, depending on the severity of the violation.

Who Can Raise a Brady Violation Claim?

A Brady violation claim can be raised by a defendant or their legal representative if they believe that the prosecution has withheld exculpatory evidence.

What Constitutes Exculpatory Evidence?

Exculpatory evidence refers to any information or material that may prove a defendant’s innocence or reduce their potential sentence.

Conclusion on Brady violation examples

Understanding Brady violations and their implications is critical to ensure a fair and just trial. The examples highlighted above underscore the importance of the Brady rule and the potential consequences of violations.