| Brady v. Maryland | ||||||
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued March 18–19, 1963 Decided May 13, 1963 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full case name | Brady v. State of Maryland | |||||
| Citations | 373 U.S. 83 (more) 83 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1615 |
|||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, Goldberg | |||||
| Concurrence | White | |||||
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Black | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | ||||||
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had performed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only of the question of punishment.
The court held that withholding evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling was affirmed.
Police officers who lie are often called as "Brady cops", as because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement officials involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity.[1]
Contents |
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 373
- Brady material
- Jencks Act
- Jencks v. United States
- Casey Novak — Fictional prosecutor on Law and Order: SVU who was disbarred for violating the Brady Rules
References
- ^ Kamb, Lewis; Nalder, Eric (January 29, 2008). "Cops who lie don't always lose jobs". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/349169_lying29.html.
Further reading
- Hochman, Robert (1996). "Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials". The University of Chicago Law Review 63 (4): 1673–1705. doi:.
- Sundby, Scott E. (2002). "Fallen Superheroes and Constitutional Mirages: The Tale of Brady v. Maryland". McGeorge Law Review 33. doi:.
External links
- ^ 373 U.S. 83 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
