Brady material: Difference between revisions

From California Criminal Law Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "'''Brady''' or '''Brady material''' is shorthand for material that must be disclosed to the defense under ''Brady v. Maryland'' (1963) 373 U.S. 83. Brady material includes im...")
 
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


Brady material includes impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence. (''United States v. Bagley'' (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 676.) Impeachment evidence includes all benefits given to an informant in exchange for cooperation and testimony. (''Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150.) "This responsibility includes the duty as required by ''Giglio'' to turn over to the defense in discovery ''all'' material information casting a shadow on a government witness's credibility. [Citation.]"  (United States v. Bernal-Obeso (9th Cir. 1993) 989 F.2d 331, 334 [italics in original].)
Brady material includes impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence. (''United States v. Bagley'' (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 676.) Impeachment evidence includes all benefits given to an informant in exchange for cooperation and testimony. (''Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150.) "This responsibility includes the duty as required by ''Giglio'' to turn over to the defense in discovery ''all'' material information casting a shadow on a government witness's credibility. [Citation.]"  (United States v. Bernal-Obeso (9th Cir. 1993) 989 F.2d 331, 334 [italics in original].)
In particular, we know of no authority imposing a duty on the police to use electronic recording devices to collect and preserve all witnesses' statements. People v. Erwin (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1552 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 354], as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 7, 1994)
Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87
Giles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66, 98–100.
Weatherford v. Bursey (1977) 429 U.S. 545, 559.
United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97.  the U.S. Supreme Court held that prosecutors have a
duty to disclose regardless of whether there has been a request from the defense attorney. 
Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 269
Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419. Knowledge by governmental agencies of information that assists in the investigation is imputed  to the prosecution. A prosecutor has a duty to learn of exculpatory evidence known to
investigative agencies acting on the prosecution’s behalf
In re Brown (1998) 17 Cal.4th 873
13. People v. Superior Court of Imperial County (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1315.
14. Weatherford, supra, 429 U.S. at 559.
15. People v. Ashraf (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1213.
16. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987) 480 U.S. 39.
18. People v. Hayes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1244 [domestic violence case where prior false reports were not provided to the
defense], quoting People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 30.
19. Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 263, 282, fn. 21.
20. People v. Martinez (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1078.
21. United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 677; see also Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150, 154. [A co-conspirator
testified on behalf of the prosecution and falsely denied he had received a promise of immunity.]
22. People v. Salazar (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1031, 1050

Latest revision as of 19:15, 24 May 2025

Brady or Brady material is shorthand for material that must be disclosed to the defense under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.

Brady material includes impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence. (United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 676.) Impeachment evidence includes all benefits given to an informant in exchange for cooperation and testimony. (Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150.) "This responsibility includes the duty as required by Giglio to turn over to the defense in discovery all material information casting a shadow on a government witness's credibility. [Citation.]" (United States v. Bernal-Obeso (9th Cir. 1993) 989 F.2d 331, 334 [italics in original].)



In particular, we know of no authority imposing a duty on the police to use electronic recording devices to collect and preserve all witnesses' statements. People v. Erwin (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1552 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 354], as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 7, 1994)

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87

Giles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66, 98–100.

Weatherford v. Bursey (1977) 429 U.S. 545, 559.

United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97. the U.S. Supreme Court held that prosecutors have a duty to disclose regardless of whether there has been a request from the defense attorney.


Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 269


Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419. Knowledge by governmental agencies of information that assists in the investigation is imputed to the prosecution. A prosecutor has a duty to learn of exculpatory evidence known to investigative agencies acting on the prosecution’s behalf


In re Brown (1998) 17 Cal.4th 873

13. People v. Superior Court of Imperial County (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1315.
14. Weatherford, supra, 429 U.S. at 559.
15. People v. Ashraf (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1213.
16. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987) 480 U.S. 39.
18. People v. Hayes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1244 [domestic violence case where prior false reports were not provided to the 

defense], quoting People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 30.

19. Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 263, 282, fn. 21.
20. People v. Martinez (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1078.
21. United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 677; see also Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150, 154. [A co-conspirator 

testified on behalf of the prosecution and falsely denied he had received a promise of immunity.]

22. People v. Salazar (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1031, 1050