Brady v.Maryland · c/696 3. Ls3 v.r/4 It ili voL. I N0.4 AUGUST 1983 Brady v.Maryland Q43lX...
2
c/696 3. Ls3 v.r/4 I t ili voL. I N0. 4 AUGUST 1983 Brady v.Maryland Q43lX v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (tgoeT. * There has been some confusion con- cerning the duties of a prosecutor or prosecuting officer when evidence be- comes known to the Prosecutor or officer which is favorable in any way to the defense, but is not known to the defense. In order to address that ques- tion, a look at the role of the State in criminal prosecutors is approoriate. Courts have consistently stated that the obl igation of t.he State goes beyond bl ind Prcsecutiott. The State's obligation is not to convict, but to see that, so far as possible, truth emerges. This is the ultimate statement of its responsibilities to provide a fair trial under the Due Process clause of the Four- teenth Amendment. No re- spectable interest of the State is served by its concealment of infonnation which is material...to the case; including all possi ble defenses. Giles v. l4aryland 386 U.ffi T[fd7TToncurri ng opi ni on . The issue of what is the legal duty of the prosecutor or officer is addressed in Brady v. l'laryland, 373 U.S. 83'(1967). Brad[was coivffil-of murder and ien- tenced to death. Before that, the de- fense counsel asked to examine statements made by a co-defendant. Some statements were shom to the defense, .but a state- ment wherein the co-defendant actualiy admitted the shooting was not shown to the defense. After the sentence of death was imposed, Brady appealed. The U,S. Suprenre Court agreed that the evi- dence should have been revealed to the defense. The court stated: In a unifLed effort to keep you lnformed on legal mattcrs and upgrade our professlon we are pleased to pre- sent to you this issue of LEGAL LOG. Thls publlcatLon wlll be made available to you on a regular basis. The LEGAL LOG r^r111 dlscuss only legal lssues and wLll ln no way attempt to dlctate policy of the Hlghway Patrol on subjects covered. Questions of pollcy pertaining to those macters are to be handled through Dlstrict Conmanders and/or Patrol tlead- quarters. Your conrnents and suggesttons for future lssues are soll.cited. Corres- pondence should be addressed to S.C. Hlghway Patrol Trainlng Offtcer, 5400 Broad RLver Road, Columbla, S.C. 2e2lo. Clyde F. Col-lins Lleutenant (i
Transcript of Brady v.Maryland · c/696 3. Ls3 v.r/4 It ili voL. I N0.4 AUGUST 1983 Brady v.Maryland Q43lX...
c/6963. Ls3v.r/4
It ili
voL. I N0. 4 AUGUST 1983
Brady v.Maryland
Q43lX v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(tgoeT.
*
There has been some confusion con-cerning the duties of a prosecutor orprosecuting officer when evidence be-comes known to the Prosecutor orofficer which is favorable in any way tothe defense, but is not known to thedefense. In order to address that ques-tion, a look at the role of the Statein criminal prosecutors is approoriate.
Courts have consistently statedthat the obl igation of t.he State goesbeyond bl ind Prcsecutiott.
The State's obligation isnot to convict, but to seethat, so far as possible,truth emerges. This is theultimate statement of itsresponsibilities to providea fair trial under the DueProcess clause of the Four-teenth Amendment. No re-spectable interest of theState is served by itsconcealment of infonnationwhich is material...to thecase; including all possible defenses. Giles v.l4aryland 386 U.ffiT[fd7TToncurri ng opi ni on .
The issue of what is the legal dutyof the prosecutor or officer is addressedin Brady v. l'laryland, 373 U.S. 83'(1967).Brad[was coivffil-of murder and ien-tenced to death. Before that, the de-fense counsel asked to examine statementsmade by a co-defendant. Some statementswere shom to the defense, .but a state-ment wherein the co-defendant actualiyadmitted the shooting was not shown tothe defense. After the sentence ofdeath was imposed, Brady appealed. TheU,S. Suprenre Court agreed that the evi-dence should have been revealed to thedefense. The court stated:
In a unifLed effort to keep youlnformed on legal mattcrs and upgradeour professlon we are pleased to pre-sent to you this issue of LEGAL LOG.Thls publlcatLon wlll be made availableto you on a regular basis.
The LEGAL LOG r^r111 dlscuss onlylegal lssues and wLll ln no way attemptto dlctate policy of the Hlghway Patrolon subjects covered.
Questions of pollcy pertaining tothose macters are to be handled throughDlstrict Conmanders and/or Patrol tlead-quarters.
Your conrnents and suggesttons forfuture lssues are soll.cited. Corres-pondence should be addressed to S.C.Hlghway Patrol Trainlng Offtcer, 5400Broad RLver Road, Columbla, S.C.2e2lo.
Clyde F. Col-linsLleutenant
(i
Il,le hold that the suppressionby the prosecution of evidencefavorable to an accused uoonrequest violates due processwhere the evidence is materialeither to guilt or punishment,irrespective of the goodfaith or bad faith of theprosecution. Brhdy at 87.
In this decision the Court pointsout that not only evidence as to guilt orinnocence should be revealed, but alsoany mitigating circumstances which mightaffect punishment. The motive of theprosecution is not controlling.
The remedy for not revealing infor-matlon favorable to the defendant is thegranting of a new trial. The test as towhether a new tria'l should be grantedis set forth in United States v. Agurs,427 Us.s 97 (1e76TlTnThis caseftfiEU.S. Supreme Court indicates that not allomitted evidence will require a new trial.If the non-disclosure is nharmless underthe customary harmless error standard",then no new trial is allowable. Thecourt stated :
The proper standard of materi-ality must reflect the over-riding concern with the justiceof the finding of guilt. Itnecessarily follows that ifthe omitted evidence. createsa reasondble doubt that didnot othenrise exist constitu-tional error has been cormitted.This means that the ormissionmust be evaluated in the context
of the record, Agurs.at103.
If it js a close case, then a smallnon-disclosure might tip the scales infavor of a new trial, while if the non-disclosure does not affect the verdictof guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' thena new tria'l may not be in order. Thisdecision rests in the total context ofeach individual case. l,lhile Bradydealt with requested information,occasjonally a defense attorney willfail tc isk. fo; favorable rnaterial . Itis clear that sonre materia'! must be
disclosed even if not requested.
In 49urs the court recognized thatalthoughTfiilprosecution must act with"earnestness and vigor, he must alwaysbe faithful to his itient's overridinginterest'that iustice shall be done'."Agurs at 103.
The court goes on to Point out thatelementary fairiess requires the disclo-sure of evidence of obvious substantialval ue to the defense whether requestedor not.
t'Jhjle sometjmes it is tempting forthe prosecution to adopt a "tie againstthem" attitude, it is imPortant tokeep in mind that the goal of truthmust be kept above that of conviction.The ftgtJ rule can be more easily under-siood'iil t.hai coniexi.
tEeU [0G ," *hlt^hrn *,r.drl,t bg th? Sou-fl. Catutitucnhnnal lu,tiic.e lcadut q- ;i ;irleh Joln A. |'Lcang itErcutlvt oitrtttort ata xcni.tt R,. BerE,lct U Cenlal ,Couue!. ?at^at oloalgrrrl a^z undeL fin'dituillan o5ii,fiua- cfu"rdul' cai:i i-]rteet- rnd ut, clldc F -
I
)
tECAt tOC will devote itt cotlttw to Lttr en(ortcunutt'tItSaL ptlrbalfi. ln aff*at uill be tmde to ol[ut .
q'tac/i"?!2 guid,oli.nu tt Isl zn|oanenert o{dicuunth?i fun ahat,r,r,e.:t 2e4ol theordet.
Co llitu,'la sitttit Tuini+e 0 6 [iaei.
