•  
  •  
 
Vanderbilt Law Review

First Page

875

Abstract

This largest-ever study of adjudicated violations of Brady v. Maryland provides a detailed and nuanced understanding of who suppresses material evidence in criminal cases, as well as why, how, where, and how often. Its findings complicate the conventional wisdom that Brady violations are the work of nefarious prosecutors who intentionally withhold material evidence from criminal defendants. While it is true that “bad faith” permeates this area of constitutional noncompliance, a substantial minority of Brady cases stem from “good faith” errors by prosecutors and suppression by law enforcement officers. Mostviolations occur in a small number of states, and most often, state courts provide relief. And while there is not quantitative evidence of an epidemic, the individual effects of Brady violations are severe. On average, a defendant whose Brady rights are violated spends more time in prison than a defendant who is later exonerated.

When government officials routinely violate a clearly established constitutional right like Brady with such negative consequences to the injured parties, the time is ripe for evidence-based interventions to enhance constitutional compliance. The insights from this study point to a new range of strategies. For example, focusing on preventing “good faith” Brady errors, especially in non-homicide cases, may be substantially more productive than solely focusing on punishing “bad faith” Brady violations—a tactic that has proven to be frustratingly unsuccessful. Relatedly, working with law enforcement officers to better identify and submit potential Brady evidence to prosecutors may create a smoother pipeline for the eventual production of material evidence to defendants. Ultimately, by providing unprecedented detail about historical Brady violations, this study will serve the cause of future overall Brady compliance.

Download

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

Share

COinS