Brady v. Maryland
- Decided
- May 13, 1963
- Docket
- 490
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 33,902 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that new evidence impeaching key government witness’s credibility did not require new trial because it was cumulative of evidence already introduced — United States v. Frank Locascio, and John Gotti (1993)
- holding that a due process violation occurs when the state suppresses or fails to disclose material exculpatory evidence — Commonwealth v. Chamberlain (2011)
- holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material evidence favorable to the accused — United States v. Perez-Ruiz (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Douglas, announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.
Petitioner and a companion, Boblit, were found guilty of murder in the first degree and were sentenced to death, their convictions being affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. 220 Md. 454, 154 A. 2d 434. Their trials were separate, petitioner' being tried first. At his trial Brady took the stand and admitted his participation in the crime, but he claimed that Boblit did the actual killing. And, in his summation to the jury, Brady’s counsel conceded that Brady was guilty of murder in thé first degree, asking only that the jury return that verdict “without capital punishment.” Prior to the trial petitioner’s counsel had requested the prosecution to allow him to examine Boblit’s extrajudicial statements. Several of those statements were shown to him; but one dated July 9, 1958, in which Boblit admitted the actual homicide, was withheld by the prosecution and did not come to petitioner’s notice until after he had been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and after his conviction had been affirmed.
Petitioner moved the trial court for a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence' that had been suppressed by the prosecution. Petitioner’s appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without prejudice to relief under the Maryland [*85] Post Conviction Procedure Act. 222 Md. 442, 160 A. 2d 912. The petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A. 2d 167. The case is here on certiorari, 371 U. S. 812.[1]
Statutes cited
Cite this
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.