In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the case Brady v. Maryland that prosecutors must turn over any evidence favorable to a criminal defendant prior to trial, including evidence that could potentially exonerate the defendant. This rule 鈥� known as the Brady rule 鈥� is routinely violated, including in many high-profile cases.
Last year, a judge dismissed involuntary manslaughter charges against actor Alec Baldwin after the court learned that the government withheld key evidence that undercut its case. In 2018, the Netflix true crime documentary 鈥淭he Innocent Man鈥� told the story of Karl Fontenot, who was convicted of murder and later learned the prosecutor and police had not disclosed more than 800 pages of exculpatory documents and witness interviews. Fontenot was released after 35 years in prison.
New research from the University of Notre Dame provides the largest-ever examination of Brady violations and offers possible solutions.
, associate professor of law at and director of the in Notre Dame鈥檚 Keough 91视频 of Global Affairs, authored 鈥�,鈥� forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review. The article offers a detailed and nuanced understanding of who suppresses material evidence in criminal cases as well as why, how, where and how often.
The conventional wisdom is that nefarious prosecutors intentionally withhold evidence from criminal defendants. McAward鈥檚 study confirms that this misconduct is indeed widespread. However, the paper also identifies many cases in which evidence is mistakenly withheld and where police officers, not prosecutors, suppress the evidence.
鈥淧rosecutors charge someone with a crime only if they are convinced the defendant is guilty and the witnesses against the defendant are telling the truth,鈥� McAward said. 鈥淪ometimes, prosecutors are so convinced they are right that they are willing to break the rules to secure a conviction, and there are few consequences for lawyers who break the rules in this way.
鈥淏ut even if a prosecutor wants to play by the rules 鈥� and most do, of course 鈥� it鈥檚 very hard to appreciate the importance of evidence that runs contrary to the theory of the defendant鈥檚 guilt,鈥� she said.
The majority of prosecutors who choose to play by the rules, McAward points out, have the tremendous responsibility of collecting, evaluating and disclosing evidence to the defense. The system allows a lot of room for both mistakes and misconduct.
鈥淔rom a defendant鈥檚 point of view, it doesn鈥檛 matter whether the exculpatory evidence was withheld by mistake or on purpose,鈥� she said. 鈥淓ither way, the defendant has been imprisoned in violation of the Constitution.鈥�
McAward proposes a range of strategies to address the problem, including focusing on preventing good-faith Brady errors, especially in non-homicide cases. This, she states, may be substantially more productive than punishing bad-faith Brady violations, which has proven to be unsuccessful.
Relatedly, the study suggests that training law enforcement officers about their legal obligations may create a smoother pipeline for the eventual production of material evidence to defendants.
McAward鈥檚 scholarship on Brady violations follows years of teaching Notre Dame law students about the problem and becoming disheartened by the constant flow of new cases.
鈥淚 decided it鈥檚 time for me to be more proactive 鈥� to offer a deeper and more nuanced understanding of these cases so there can be meaningful, targeted policy responses,鈥� she said. 鈥淕reater compliance with this constitutional right will benefit not only defendants, but also society in general.鈥�
Ultimately, by providing unprecedented detail about historical Brady violations, McAward鈥檚 study will help promote the integrity of the criminal justice system and compliance with long-settled constitutional rights.
Contact: Jennifer Mason McAward, 574-631-7528, mason.1@nd.edu