United States v. Agurs
- Decided
- June 24, 1976
- Docket
- 75-491
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,537 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled, overruled in part on other grounds, overruled on other grounds, abrogated on other grounds, disapproved on other grounds (not yet verified) · State v. Parsons
What later courts said
- holding that Brady’s materiality standard “reflect[s] our overriding concern with the justice of the finding of guilt” — United States v. Coppa (2001)
- concluding that prosecutor has a duty to reveal material exculpatory evidence even in the absence of a specific request — Brady v. Dill (1999)
- holding that the more general the defendant’s request for exculpatory material the higher the materiality standard for setting aside a conviction — United States v. Charles P. Streich (1985)
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
MR. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
After a brief interlude in an inexpensive motel room, respondent repeatedly stabbed James Sewell, causing his death. She was convicted of second-degree murder. The question before us is whether the prosecutor’s failure [*99] to provide defense counsel with certain background information about Sewell, which would have tended to support the argument that respondent acted in self-defense, deprived her of a fair trial under the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83.
The answer to the question depends on (1) a review of the facts, (2) the significance of the failure of defense counsel to request the material, and (3) the standard by which the prosecution’s failure to volunteer exculpatory material should be judged.
Cite this
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)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.