BRADY CASES

 

SUCCESSFUL BRADY CASES

 

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

 

Napue v. Illinois, 
360 U.S. 264 (1959).  

"When reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence," nondisclosure of immunity deal with witness violates Due Process.

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

Suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith of the prosecution.

Miller v. Pate, 
386 U.S. 1 (1967)

Habeas granted where prosecution knowingly misrepresented paint-stained shorts as blood-stained, and failed to disclose the true nature of the stains.

Giglio v. United States, 
405 U.S. 150 (1972)

Government failed to disclose impeachment evidence of a promise of immunity in exchange for testimony. Prosecutor's knowing creation of a false impression requires new trial "if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the verdict."

Kyles v. Whitley, 
514 U.S. 419 (1995)

Conviction and death sentence reversed where state withheld eyewitness and informant statements, and a list of license numbers. Withheld evidence is to be evaluated collectively, not item-by-item, and the standard is a "reasonable probability" of a different result. The Court also made clear that "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police." 514 U.S. at 437.

Banks v. Dretke, 
124 S.Ct. 1256 (2004)

Texas death row inmate was entitled to habeas relief from his death sentence due to the prosecution’s suppression of evidence of a trial witness's informant status where that witness's testimony was key to the prosecution’s claim of future dangerousness and the witness was not otherwise effectively impeached. Petitioner established cause for his failure to present the evidence establishing the Brady violation to the state court in that petitioner reasonably relied on the government’s pre-trial promise to disclose all Brady material, and the state had continued to deny that the witness was informant at state post-conviction proceedings.