Brady Violation

What It Is

A Brady violation occurs when the prosecution suppresses evidence that is favorable to the defendant and material to guilt or punishment. The rule comes from Brady v. Maryland.

The Three Elements

1. The evidence is favorable — It’s exculpatory (shows innocence) or impeaching (undermines a prosecution witness’s credibility)
2. The prosecution suppressed it — They didn’t disclose it to the defense, whether intentionally or inadvertently
3. The evidence is material — There’s a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if it had been disclosed

Why It Matters for § 1983

Brady violations can form the basis of a § 1983 claim. If police officers or prosecutors fabricated evidence or concealed exculpatory material, and you were prosecuted or convicted as a result, you may have a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But there’s a brutal catch: the prosecutor who suppressed the evidence is likely shielded by absolute immunity. Your § 1983 claim targets the officers who withheld evidence from the prosecution or fabricated it — not the prosecutor who failed to turn it over.

The Connick Problem

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) held that a single Brady violation cannot establish Monell failure-to-train liability against a DA’s office. Thompson spent 14 years on death row because prosecutors hid blood evidence. He won $14 million at trial. The Supreme Court reversed 5-4.

Key Cases

• Brady v. Maryland — Prosecution must disclose favorable evidence
• Giglio v. United States — Extended Brady to impeachment evidence
• Strickler v. Greene — Three-part Brady test
• Kyles v. Whitley — Cumulative materiality and the duty to learn of police-held favorable evidence
• Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) — Single Brady violation insufficient for Monell