Kyles v. Whitley
- Decided
- April 19, 1995
- Docket
- 93-7927
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,003 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Brady’s duty encompasses evidence “known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor” — Haley v. City of Boston (2011)
- holding that once material Brady error is found, "there is no need for further harmless-error review” — Cargle v. Mullin (2003)
- holding that the State’s disclosure obligation under Brady turns on the cumulative effect of the withheld evidence, not an item by item analysis — Anton E. Barker v. Gary Fleming (2005)
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
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
After his first trial in 1984 ended in a hung jury, petitioner Curtis Lee Kyles was tried again, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death. On habeas review, we follow the established rule that the state’s obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, turns on the cumulative effect of all such evidence suppressed by the government, and we hold that the prosecutor remains responsible for gauging that effect regardless of any failure by the police to bring favorable evidence to the prosecutor’s attention. Because the net effect of the evidence withheld by the State in this case raises [*422] a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result, Kyles is entitled to a new trial.
I
Cite this
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)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.