Brady v. Maryland
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
All 857 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatments are listed below; duplicate CourtListener copies of In re A.C. and Mosley v. State are counted once.
33,491 later cases cite Brady v. Maryland; 857 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Brady v. Maryland?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court held that Brady does not impose an affirmative duty on the government to assist the defense in presenting its case and therefore does not require judicial use immunity for a defense witness.
United States v. Herbst · Fifth Circuit · filed
We note in passing that neither Brady nor its progeny places an affirmative duty upon the Government to assist the defense in the presentation of its case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Brady's disclosure rule to evidence presented to a grand jury, reasoning that Brady concerns pretrial disclosure for trial and that grand-jury materiality is different.
Buzbee v. Donnelly · Supreme Court of New Mexico · filed
A few lower federal courts have attempted to extend the Costello rule, or circumvent it, by applying the principles enunciated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The Court in Brady held that the prosecutor has a duty to divulge exculpatory evidence to a defendant when that defendant requests specific material before trial. Brady does not address what type of evidence ought to be submitted before a grand jury. It is a pre-trial discovery case. In their efforts to develop more liberal guidelines than are indicated in Costello, some courts are looking to Brady. To do this, courts have equated a grand jury proceeding with a trial. We decline to follow this reasoning, as it has some obvious flaws.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Brady does not apply to tardy disclosure unless the delay prejudices the defendant, distinguishing delayed disclosure from a complete failure to disclose.
United States v. Word · Sixth Circuit · filed
In general, the principles announced in Brady do not apply to a tardy disclosure of exculpatory information, but to a complete failure to disclose. United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1381 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 440, 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984). If previously undisclosed evidence is disclosed, as here, during trial, no Brady violation occurs unless the defendant has been prejudiced by the delay in disclosure.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Brady's disclosure duty to evidence related to the charged offense and excluded evidence of extraneous offenses that the State may introduce at punishment.
Ex parte Dixon · Texas Court of Appeals, Fort Worth · filed
The trial judge in this ease found that the test results on the shell casings and marijuana are exculpatory and therefore constituted Brady information that should have been disclosed prior to Dixon’s trial. Neither Dixon nor the State disputed this finding at the habeas hearing. On appeal, however, the State argues that the evidence in the reports is not exculpatory and thus no mistrial was required. We turn first to the report received from the crime laboratory, which indicated that the test results were inconclusive as to whether the cartridge casings were fired from the same gun. As noted above, evidence is exculpatory where it negates a defendant’s guilt or mitigates the offense. However, evidence that is inconclusive, by definition, does not tend to clear or excuse a defendant from guilt in an offense. Indeed, the fact that the test could not determine whether the casings were fired from the same gun has no bearing whatsoever on whether Dixon committed the murder in question. Consequently, we find that the test results on the bullet casings are not exculpatory and thus the prosecution had no duty to disclose the results. Next, we consider the DPS report on the substance seized during the inventory of Dixon’s car. Evidence is only exculpatory if it tends to clear or excuse a defendant of the alleged offense. Had Dixon been on trial for possession of marijuana, this evidence would undoubtedly be exculpatory and the State would have a duty to disclose it. However, Dixon was on trial for murder, not possession of marijuana. The State’s duty to turn over exculpatory information is limited to evidence related to the charged offense, and does not extend to evidence of extraneous offenses that the State may introduce at punishment. Thus, the DPS report is not exculpatory as to the alleged offense and thus the prosecution had no duty to disclose it to the defense.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that disclosure during trial is timely under Brady when the defense still has sufficient time to use the information.
United States v. Gonzales · District of Utah · filed
The Tenth Circuit has held that Brady v. Maryland is not violated if previously unknown information is revealed to Defendant in sufficient time for the defendant to make use of it during trial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that evidence disclosed during trial is not suppressed within Brady's meaning.
State v. Collic · Connecticut Appellate Court · filed
“ ‘Evidence known to the defendant or his counsel, or that is disclosed, even if during trial, is not considered suppressed as that term is used in Brady.’ ”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that tardy Brady disclosure warrants relief only if the delay itself prejudiced the defendant.
In re A.C. · Texas Court of Appeals, Fort Worth · filed
To prevail on a Brady claim where the State's disclosure is tardy, the appellant must show that the late disclosure prejudiced him.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court limited Brady disclosure in prison disciplinary proceedings to disclosures that would not create security issues.
Herrera v. Davis · Seventh Circuit · filed
And as for Herrera having access to the videotape himself, we have noted that under Brady, disclosure is limited to situations which “would not create security issues,” Gaither v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 817, 820 (7th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by White, 266 F.3d at 765-66.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that a defendant's opportunity to use evidence at trial can cure the prosecution's failure to disclose it before trial under Brady.
State v. Pepper · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second District · filed
Even if materials that might constitute Brady evidence are not disclosed prior to trial, prejudice can be avoided if a defendant is able to use the evidence at trial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court treated Brady as concerned almost exclusively with nondisclosure rather than mere delay in disclosure.
United States v. Henry · Sixth Circuit · filed
Brady is concerned almost exclusively with the prosecution’s failure to turn over material rather than mere delay and, more importantly here, Brady is concerned with exculpatory evidence, that is[,] evidence favorable to the defendant.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that a defendant waives a Brady violation arising from trial-time disclosure by failing to request a continuance.
Mosley v. State · Texas Court of Appeals, Seventh District · filed
Furthermore, when previously withheld evidence is disclosed at trial, the defendant has an opportunity to request a continuance. Id . The failure to request one waives any Brady violation, as well as any violation of a discovery order.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that delayed disclosure, unlike complete nondisclosure, ordinarily does not violate Brady unless the delay itself prejudices the defense.
McKay v. State · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
Generally, if there is only a delayed disclosure of information, in contrast to a complete failure to disclose exculpatory information, Brady normally does not apply, unless the delay itself causes prejudice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to permit Brady-based Section 1983 claims by defendants who were ultimately acquitted, limiting such claims to cases involving a conviction.
Smith v. Almada · Ninth Circuit · filed
We thus decline to allow § 1983 claims for alleged Brady violations by a defendant who is ultimately acquitted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Brady's disclosure rule does not apply to institutional disciplinary proceedings because they are not criminal prosecutions.
Mitts v. Zickefoose · District of New Jersey · filed
[Brady] involve[d] issues of constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants during their criminal trial proceedings and [it is] not applicable to institutional disciplinary proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court extended Ruiz to suppression hearings and held that Brady does not require disclosure of impeachment evidence before such a hearing.
United States v. Harmon · District of New Mexico · filed
Because the evidence is not exculpatory and has no impeachment value, the United States had no obligation to disclose the evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Even if the evidence is impeachment evidence, Brady v. Maryland did not require the United States to disclose this evidence to Harmon before his suppression hearing or before he entered his guilty plea.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Brady's criminal disclosure rule to sexually violent predator civil-commitment proceedings.
In re Commitment of Alexander · Texas Court of Appeals, Ninth District · filed
Alexander maintains that the trial court should have allowed the deposition because Brady v. Maryland’s rule requiring disclosure of exculpatory evidence in criminal cases should be extended to SVP civil commitment cases. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash a deposition under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See In re Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Tex. 2007); Salazar v. Coastal Corp., 928 S.W.2d 162, 171 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ). SVP cases are civil proceedings, not criminal or quasi-criminal. See In re Commitment of Martinez, 98 S.W.3d 373, 375 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied) (“Chapter 841 is a civil, not a criminal or quasi-criminal, statute.”). A civil commitment proceeding is subject to the rules of civil procedure unless otherwise provided by the Act. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.146(b) (West 2010). Clayton was not designated or retained as a testifying expert for the State. “The identity, mental impressions, and opinions of a consulting expert whose mental impressions and opinions have not been reviewed by a testifying expert are not discoverable.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to quash. Issue two is overruled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The en banc Fifth Circuit declined to extend Brady to require disclosure of exculpatory evidence before a defendant enters a guilty plea, reaffirming circuit precedent that no such pre-plea constitutional right exists.
Alvarez v. City of Brownsville · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed
Prior to this court granting Alvarez’s petition for rehearing en banc, settled precedent in this circuit held that there was no constitutional right to Brady material prior to a guilty plea. See United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 178– 79 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353, 361–62 (5th Cir. 2000)). Alvarez argues that under Brady the videos of the incident between him and Officer Arias constituted exculpatory evidence that he was constitutionally entitled to before the entry of his guilty plea. See 373 U.S. at 87. This court declines the invitation to uproot its precedent.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Brady is not violated when delayed evidence is disclosed during trial.
State v. Howard · Nebraska Court of Appeals · filed
the State’s failure to disclose it prior to trial does not violate Brady v. Maryland, supra.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that disclosure during trial does not violate Brady even when it surprises the defense, subject to trial-court remedies such as a continuance.
State v. Brown · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eleventh District · filed
Brady is not violated when disclosure occurs during trial, even when disclosure surprises the defendant with previously undisclosed evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Brady generally does not apply to delayed disclosure and that delay violates Brady only when the delay itself causes prejudice.
State v. Thomas · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed
Brady generally does not apply to delayed disclosure of exculpatory information, but only to a complete failure to disclose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that evidence disclosed or introduced during trial does not support a Brady violation.
State v. Smith · Ohio Court of Appeals, First District · filed
But there is no Brady violation where evidence is disclosed or introduced during trial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Brady v. Maryland and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace