Brady material encompasses a specific aspect of prosecutorial conduct, deriving its name from the 1963 landmark case, Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83). In this case, the United States Supreme Court established a crucial principle: the prosecution is obligated to disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant. This evidence, known as Brady material, consists of information that, if revealed, could have benefited the defendant by proving innocence, challenging a witness’s credibility, or mitigating the sentence.
When a prosecutor withholds favorable evidence, it triggers Brady material concerns, potentially violating a defendant’s due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. The prosecution’s role is not solely about securing convictions but also about seeking justice, and defendants have the right to access all evidence that could aid their case. It is important to note that the actions or inactions of the police agency working with the prosecution is held to this same standard because they are part of the prosecution team. Meaning, if a police officer or detective withholds Brady material, the prosecutor could be responsible for the police officer’s failure to disclose the evidence.
Brady issues often arise when the prosecution team becomes narrowly focused on proving the defendant’s guilt, leading them to overlook or conceal evidence that might exonerate the accused. This is commonly referred to as “tunnel vision.” A notable case illustrating Brady material’s impact on innocence is that of Michael Hanline, who spent 36 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, with his conviction being overturned in 2014.
Discovering Brady material poses a significant challenge for wrongfully convicted individuals, necessitating extensive post-conviction investigations and, at times, sheer luck to unveil evidence suppressed by the prosecution. The nature of Brady material being hidden makes it nearly impossible for incarcerated individuals to uncover it within the confines of the prison.
TIC is currently litigating Raymundo Chagolla’s case for an egregious Brady violation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. If it were not for post-conviction assistance, Mr. Chagolla would have never discovered a prominent gang had threatened the victim adn the victim’s family prior to being murdered. Had his defense attorney known about this information, there is no doubt the jury would have believed Raymundo did not commit the murder.
An additional question that comes up is whether Brady material applies to the post-conviction stage. If evidence of innocence surfaces after a conviction, is the prosecution obligated to disclose it or inform the inmate or their counsel? From a legal standpoint, recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, exemplified by District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne (557 U.S. 52, 2009), suggests that defendants have fewer rights after conviction than before. The court held that extending the Brady right of pretrial disclosure to the post-conviction context was a misinterpretation.
However, ethical considerations come into play. Rule 3.8(g) of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that if a prosecutor is aware of new, credible, and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant is innocent, they must disclose this information to the court and the defendant. It’s important to note that the ABA Model Rules serve as guidelines, and states are not obligated to adopt them. This raises questions about the ethical obligations of prosecutors in post-conviction scenarios.
