- A defendant is charged with battery. He claims self-defense. The defendant and the alleged victim were the only two people present. During trial preparation, the prosecutor learns that the victim has a history of initiating bar fights, a fact not reflected in the victim's criminal record. The prosecutor decides this is inadmissible character evidence and does not disclose it. The defendant is convicted.
Answer: This is a Brady violation because the victim's history is material evidence that would have supported the defendant's self-defense claim.
The correct answer is A. When a defendant claims self-defense, evidence of the victim's violent character can be admissible to show that the victim was the first aggressor. Therefore, the victim's history of starting fights is material, exculpatory evidence that supports the defendant's claim. The prosecutor's duty is to disclose this information, not to unilaterally decide its admissibility. B is incorrect because there is an exception to the prohibition on character evidence for this exact purpose. C is incorrect because once the prosecutor has knowledge of material exculpatory evidence, she must disclose it, regardless of its source. D is incorrect because the evidence of aggression is relevant even if it did not result in convictions.
- Withheld evidence was cumulative; guilt evidence was overwhelming. Which is true?
Answer: No violation if not material
Cumulative evidence and overwhelming guilt mean the withheld evidence wouldn't create a reasonable probability of a different outcome, so it isn't material and there's no Brady violation. The tempting mistake is thinking bad faith makes any withholding reversible; bad faith doesn't override the materiality requirement and won't flip a trial where guilt is overwhelming.
- A defendant is convicted of robbery. The state's evidence included a confession. After the trial, it is discovered that the prosecutor failed to disclose a police report in which the interrogating officer noted that the defendant, who had a low IQ, seemed to not understand his Miranda rights and was highly suggestible. The defendant did not file a pre-trial motion to suppress the confession.
Answer: The non-disclosure is a Brady violation because the report was material to a potential challenge to the voluntariness of the confession.
The correct answer is B. Evidence that could support a motion to suppress key government evidence (like a confession) is considered material and subject to Brady. The officer's observations were critical to assessing the voluntariness and validity of the Miranda waiver. A is incorrect because the defendant cannot be said to have waived a challenge when the state suppressed the very evidence that would have supported it. C is incorrect because the officer's contemporaneous observations are highly relevant evidence, not mere speculation. D is incorrect because the standard is whether there is a 'reasonable probability' the disclosure would have changed the outcome (e.g., by leading to a successful suppression motion), not that the defendant must now definitively prove the motion would have succeeded.
- A defendant is charged with criminal fraud for selling counterfeit goods. The government's primary evidence comes from a confidential informant (CI) who made a controlled buy from the defendant. The prosecutor does not disclose that the CI is being paid a fee by the police that is contingent on the defendant's conviction. The prosecutor believes this is not required because the CI's identity is confidential and he will not testify at trial.
Answer: The prosecutor is incorrect because the contingent fee arrangement is material impeachment evidence that must be disclosed.
The correct answer is C. The fact that an informant is being paid on a contingent-fee basis is powerful impeachment evidence, as it gives the informant a direct financial incentive to ensure the defendant is convicted, regardless of guilt. This information is material and favorable to the defense and must be disclosed under Brady. A is incorrect because the privilege protecting a CI's identity is not absolute and can be overcome, but more importantly, the prosecutor must disclose the impeachment information even if the CI's identity is not revealed. B is incorrect because Brady applies to any material exculpatory or impeachment evidence, regardless of whether the source of that information testifies. The information could be used, for example, to challenge the integrity of the police investigation.
- A defendant is convicted of murder largely on the testimony of a jailhouse informant who claimed the defendant confessed to him. After conviction, it is revealed that the prosecutor failed to disclose that this informant had provided information in ten prior cases, and in three of those cases, the information was later proven to be false. The prosecutor argues the non-disclosure was not material because the jury was told the informant was receiving a sentence reduction for his testimony.
Answer: The non-disclosure was a Brady violation because the informant's history of providing false information is powerful impeachment evidence.
The correct answer is B. The informant's history of fabricating information is significant impeachment evidence that goes beyond the general bias shown by a plea deal. This evidence directly attacks the informant's credibility and reliability. A is incorrect because while the jury knew of one source of bias, the undisclosed evidence showed a pattern of untruthfulness, which is qualitatively different and highly material. C is incorrect because the informant's past conduct as an informant is highly relevant to his credibility in the present case. D is incorrect because the Brady duty for obviously material evidence exists even without a specific request from the defense.
- A defendant is convicted of possessing illegal firearms found in his apartment. At trial, the defendant's roommate testified for the prosecution that the firearms belonged exclusively to the defendant. Post-conviction, the defense attorney learns that at the time of the roommate's testimony, he was being investigated by a different prosecutor's office in a neighboring county for an unrelated embezzlement scheme. The trial prosecutor was not aware of this investigation.
Answer: This is not a Brady violation because the trial prosecutor was unaware of the investigation in the other county.
The correct answer is A. The scope of the 'prosecution team' for Brady purposes typically includes agencies working on the case, such as the investigating police department. It generally does not extend to every government agency or prosecutor's office in the state. Unless the two offices were coordinating or the trial prosecutor had reason to know, knowledge of an unrelated investigation by a separate sovereign or jurisdiction is not imputed to the trial prosecutor. B overstates the scope of imputed knowledge. C is incorrect because the investigation is relevant for impeachment (motive to curry favor with the government generally). D is incorrect because the pending investigation itself, not a conviction, provides the motive for bias.
- During a federal drug trafficking trial, the government's key witness testifies about the defendant's role in the conspiracy. After the witness testifies on direct examination, the defense attorney moves for production of the witness's prior statements to law enforcement. The prosecutor objects, arguing that she reviewed all the statements and they contain nothing exculpatory, so there is no disclosure obligation under Brady.
Answer: The court should grant the motion because the Jencks Act requires the production of a witness's prior statements after they testify, regardless of whether they are exculpatory.
The correct answer is B. This question tests the distinction between Brady and the Jencks Act. While the prosecutor's argument is based on Brady (no exculpatory material), the Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. § 3500) provides a separate requirement in federal court: after a government witness testifies on direct examination, the government must produce any prior statement of that witness that relates to the subject matter of their testimony. This is required whether the statement is exculpatory or not. A is incorrect because the court does not simply take the prosecutor's word, and a different rule applies here. C is incorrect because the Jencks Act specifically times the disclosure to after direct testimony. D misstates the Brady rule, which is limited to material exculpatory or impeachment evidence, not all statements.
- A defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Before the plea, his attorney had reviewed the state's evidence, which appeared strong. One year later, the defendant learned that the prosecutor had failed to disclose a lab report indicating that the purity of the drugs seized was extremely low, making them nearly worthless. This fact would have been highly relevant to the 'intent to distribute' charge and could have supported a plea to simple possession.
Answer: The defendant can seek to withdraw his plea because the prosecutor's non-disclosure rendered the plea involuntary and unintelligent.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that Brady disclosure obligations apply to the plea-bargaining process. The failure to disclose material exculpatory or impeachment evidence that would have likely led a defendant to reject a plea offer can render the subsequent plea involuntary. A is incorrect because a Brady violation that affects the voluntariness of the plea is not waived. B is incorrect because the primary constitutional error is the prosecutor's, not counsel's. D is incorrect because the prosecutor's intent is irrelevant to the analysis.
- Police lawfully arrest a defendant for robbery and seize his cellphone pursuant to the arrest. An officer performs a cursory search of the phone's recent text messages for evidence related to the robbery. While doing so, he sees, but ignores, a text message from two days prior that would support an alibi for the defendant for an unrelated burglary for which he is also a suspect. The officer does not note this text in his report, and it is never disclosed to the prosecutor handling the burglary case. The defendant is later convicted of the burglary.
Answer: This is not a Brady violation because the defendant himself knew of the text message and could have informed his attorney.
The correct answer is D. The Brady rule does not apply to information that the defendant knew or should have known and could have provided to his attorney. The defendant sent or received the text message and was aware of its contents and its potential exculpatory value. Therefore, the information was not 'suppressed' by the state because it was already known to the defense. While the facts in A and C are true, the defendant's own knowledge of the evidence is a recognized exception to the Brady rule. B is less relevant than D because knowledge can sometimes be imputed across cases, but the defendant's own awareness is a more direct reason why there is no violation.
- A defendant was convicted of arson. The prosecution's key evidence was testimony from a fire inspector who concluded the fire was intentionally set. Midway through the trial, the prosecutor disclosed to the defense a preliminary report from the same inspector in which he had initially labeled the cause as 'undetermined.' The defense attorney reviewed the report during a short recess but did not cross-examine the inspector about it. On appeal, the defendant claims a Brady violation.
Answer: There is a violation because the delayed disclosure prejudiced the defendant's ability to effectively use the evidence.
The correct answer is C. The constitutional requirement is not just disclosure, but disclosure at a time when the defense can make effective use of the evidence. Disclosing a critical report mid-trial may be a violation if it prejudices the defense by, for example, not allowing enough time to re-evaluate strategy, consult an expert, or prepare an effective cross-examination. A is incorrect because the failure to use the evidence effectively may be a result of the late disclosure itself, not a waiver. B is incorrect because the timing of the disclosure matters. D is incorrect because there is no rigid rule that disclosure must always occur before trial, although it is the standard practice; the constitutional standard is effective use.
- A defendant was convicted of murder. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. After the conviction, the defendant's appellate counsel discovered that a detective on the case had received an anonymous tip suggesting a known local drug dealer may have committed the crime. The detective followed up on the tip but was unable to substantiate it and did not include it in the official case file given to the prosecutor. The prosecutor was never aware of the tip.
Answer: A Brady violation occurred because the detective was an agent of the state, and his knowledge is imputed to the prosecutor.
The correct answer is C. The Brady disclosure obligation extends to material evidence known to police investigators, even if the prosecutor is not personally aware of it. The police are part of the 'prosecution team,' and their knowledge is imputed to the prosecutor. A is incorrect for this reason. B is incorrect because in a purely circumstantial case, a tip pointing to an alternative suspect is likely to be considered material, as it could create reasonable doubt. It is for the defense to investigate and use, not for the police to unilaterally dismiss as unsubstantiated. D states too high a burden; the defendant must show a reasonable probability of a different outcome, not prove another's guilt.
- In a capital murder trial, the prosecutor fails to disclose evidence that could be used for mitigation during the sentencing phase: a report from a social worker detailing the defendant's childhood of extreme abuse and neglect. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to death. On appeal, the state argues that the non-disclosure was not a Brady violation because the evidence was irrelevant to the question of guilt or innocence.
Answer: The state is incorrect, because the Brady disclosure obligation extends to material evidence favorable to the defendant at sentencing.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that the Brady rule applies to both the guilt and sentencing phases of a trial. Evidence that is not relevant to guilt but might lessen the punishment is considered favorable to the accused and must be disclosed if material. A is incorrect for this reason. B is incorrect because while the defendant knows his history, he may not know of the official report or its specific contents, which would carry more weight than his own testimony. D is incorrect because the rule applies to sentencing in all cases, though its materiality may be more pronounced in a capital context.
- A defendant was convicted of robbery based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. After the trial, the defendant's attorney discovered that the prosecutor was aware that the eyewitness had a prior conviction for perjury. The prosecutor did not disclose this conviction to the defense, believing it was from 15 years ago and would be inadmissible for impeachment purposes. The prior conviction was, in fact, inadmissible under the jurisdiction's rules of evidence due to its age.
Answer: Yes, because the prosecutor's good faith belief about admissibility is irrelevant to the disclosure obligation.
The correct answer is A. Under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution has a duty to disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence. The prosecutor's good or bad faith is irrelevant to whether a violation occurred. While the evidence itself might have been inadmissible, the disclosure could have led the defense to discover other admissible evidence or pursue a different trial strategy. The duty to disclose is broader than the rules of admissibility. B is incorrect because Brady is not limited to admissible evidence; it includes information that could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. C is too absolute; the core requirement is materiality. D is incorrect because the prosecutor's intent or motive does not negate a Brady violation.
- A defendant is prosecuted for securities fraud. The government's case is complex, involving thousands of pages of documents. A key government witness is the defendant's former business partner. Before trial, the prosecution provides all 50,000 pages of its documentary evidence to the defense in a searchable electronic format. Buried on page 35,721 is an email from the business partner to a third party that contains a statement directly contradicting his expected trial testimony. The prosecutor does not specifically point out this email. The defendant is convicted.
Answer: The prosecutor did not commit a Brady violation because the email was made available to the defense before trial.
The correct answer is B. Generally, there is no Brady violation if the defendant has access to the evidence and could have discovered it through reasonable diligence. When the prosecution provides the evidence in discovery, even in a large volume of material, the evidence is not considered 'suppressed.' The defense has a duty to review the materials provided. While intentionally hiding a 'needle in a haystack' could be misconduct, simply providing a large volume of documents, especially in a searchable format, does not constitute suppression under Brady. Therefore A and C are incorrect. D is a good restatement of the underlying principle making B correct.
- You are a prosecutor handling a murder case. The police have interviewed dozens of people. One person they interviewed, a local shopkeeper, told detectives that he saw the defendant a mile away from the crime scene five minutes after the murder was committed. You believe this is not exculpatory, because it would have been physically possible for the defendant to travel that distance in that time. You do not disclose the shopkeeper's statement.
Answer: Your action is improper because the statement tends to negate the defendant's guilt and must be disclosed.
The correct answer is B. The standard for Brady material is not whether it definitively proves innocence, but whether it 'tends to negate guilt' or is otherwise favorable to the accused. A statement placing the defendant a mile away from the scene near the time of the crime, while not a perfect alibi, tends to support the defense and could be used to argue reasonable doubt. The prosecutor's role is not to resolve factual disputes but to disclose favorable evidence. A is incorrect because it applies too high a standard. C is incorrect because Brady covers exculpatory evidence, not just impeachment evidence. D is incorrect because the duty to disclose obviously exculpatory evidence is not dependent on a specific defense request.
- A defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses who identified the defendant. After conviction, the defendant's lawyer discovered that the prosecution failed to disclose the statement of a third eyewitness who told police that the assailant was 'a tall man, maybe six-foot-five.' The defendant is five-foot-eight. However, this third witness also told police that he was intoxicated at the time and his view was partially obstructed.
Answer: The prosecutor's failure to disclose is a Brady violation because the statement was exculpatory and the credibility of the witness is a question for the jury.
The correct answer is B. The statement is clearly exculpatory as it describes someone physically different from the defendant. The prosecutor's duty is to disclose such evidence. It is the role of the jury, not the prosecutor, to weigh the credibility of the witness, considering his intoxication and obstructed view. The prosecutor cannot unilaterally decide that a witness is not credible enough to warrant disclosure. A is incorrect for this reason. C is a plausible argument against materiality, but the existence of some incriminating evidence does not automatically render exculpatory evidence immaterial, especially when it directly contradicts the other witnesses. D is incorrect as there is no 'per se' violation rule, and the evidence doesn't prove innocence, it just creates doubt.
- Police never told prosecutor that the key witness recanted. Which is true?
Answer: Police knowledge imputed
The prosecutor's Brady duty covers evidence known to the police, even if they never told the prosecutor. A key witness's recantation is favorable and material because it undermines the prosecution's case, so it must be disclosed. The tempting mistake is thinking the prosecutor had no duty because he lacked personal knowledge; that ignores the prosecution team's collective knowledge.
- You are representing a client charged with felony assault. The prosecution's case rests on the testimony of the victim and one other witness. During pre-trial discovery, the prosecutor provides you with the witness's criminal record, which is clean. Two weeks before trial, the witness is arrested for an unrelated felony insurance fraud charge. The prosecutor is aware of the arrest but does not inform you. Your client is convicted. You learn of the witness's arrest after the trial.
Answer: The prosecutor violated the disclosure obligation because the pending charge could have been used to show the witness's bias or motive to cooperate with the government.
The correct answer is C. Evidence that can be used for impeachment is subject to disclosure under Brady. A pending criminal charge against a key prosecution witness is classic impeachment material because it can be used to show that the witness has a motive to curry favor with the prosecution. A is incorrect because while a mere arrest is often inadmissible to attack general credibility, it is admissible to show bias or motive to lie. B is incorrect because the prosecutor's duty is ongoing and not satisfied by a single, static disclosure. D is incorrect because the potential for bias exists even without a formal agreement; the witness's hope for leniency is enough to create a motive the defense is entitled to explore.
- Prosecutor withheld a witness's statement that could reduce defendant's sentence. Which is true?
Answer: Duty extends to sentencing
Prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the defense that is material to guilt or punishment, so the duty reaches mitigation at sentencing. A withheld statement that could reduce the defendant's sentence is exactly what Brady covers. The tempting error is thinking only guilt-phase evidence counts, but materiality applies to sentencing as well; the defendant need not show innocence.
- Prosecutor never read a lab report clearing defendant. Which is true?
Answer: Negligence can still violate
The prosecution's duty extends to favorable evidence held by its team even if you personally never read it. A negligent failure to disclose exculpatory lab results can violate due process if the evidence is material. The tempting mistake is thinking no knowledge means no duty, but prosecutors must learn what is in their files and disclose.
