Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1963

Brady v. Maryland

373 U.S. 83 | 83 S. Ct. 1194 | 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 | 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1615

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case established the Brady rule: the government must disclose requested, material evidence favorable to the accused when it bears on guilt or punishment, because a fair trial—not merely a conviction—is the constitutional objective.

Background

John Brady and his companion, Boblit, were separately tried for first-degree murder committed during a robbery. Brady admitted taking part in the crime but maintained that Boblit had committed the actual killing. His lawyer conceded Brady’s guilt of first-degree murder and asked the jury to spare him the death penalty.

Before trial, Brady requested access to Boblit’s extrajudicial statements. The prosecution disclosed several statements but withheld one in which Boblit admitted committing the homicide. Brady did not learn of that statement until after his conviction, death sentence, and unsuccessful direct appeal.

Maryland’s Court of Appeals held that the State’s suppression of the statement denied Brady due process. It ordered a new trial limited to punishment, reasoning that the undisclosed statement could affect the jury’s choice between life imprisonment and death but could not reduce Brady’s first-degree-murder liability. Brady sought Supreme Court review, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial on guilt as well as punishment.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the prosecution’s suppression, after a defense request, of Boblit’s statement admitting the actual killing violated Brady’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Holding

Yes. The prosecution violates due process when it suppresses requested evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment, regardless of the prosecutor’s good faith or bad faith.

Reasoning

The Court treated the case as an extension of its precedents forbidding convictions procured through the knowing use of perjured evidence or the deliberate suppression of favorable evidence. Those cases reflect a broader constitutional concern: a criminal conviction cannot rest on a process distorted by the State’s concealment of evidence helpful to the defense.

Boblit’s statement was favorable to Brady because it supported Brady’s claim that Boblit, not Brady, had performed the killing. Even if the statement did not eliminate Brady’s liability for felony murder, it could influence the jury’s decision whether to impose death or life imprisonment.

The constitutional rule is aimed at protecting the fairness of the trial, not at punishing prosecutorial misconduct. Thus, the prosecutor’s lack of guile did not excuse the nondisclosure. Justice requires disclosure of requested, material favorable evidence because the government’s interest is not simply to obtain convictions, but to ensure that justice is done.

Issue #2

Whether due process or equal protection required Maryland to grant Brady a new trial on guilt, rather than limiting the retrial to punishment.

Holding

No. Maryland could limit the new trial to punishment because the suppressed statement was not admissible on the issue of Brady’s guilt under the relevant Maryland law.

Reasoning

The Maryland Court of Appeals had concluded that the withheld confession could not reduce Brady’s offense below first-degree murder, but that it could matter to punishment. The Supreme Court read that conclusion as a ruling that the confession was inadmissible on guilt and material only to sentencing.

Although Maryland’s constitution described criminal juries as judges of law as well as fact, Maryland precedent reserved evidentiary-admissibility decisions to trial judges. The Court therefore accepted the state court’s determination that the confession could not properly be used to contest Brady’s guilt.

Brady could not convert the possibility that a jury might disregard an evidentiary ruling into a federal constitutional entitlement to a new guilt trial. The Court rejected a “sporting theory of justice” under which a defendant would have a constitutional right to hope that jurors would use evidence beyond its legally permitted purpose.

Concurrences

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White agreed that the judgment should be affirmed, but he believed the Court should not decide the broad due-process issue. In his view, Maryland had already granted Brady a new punishment trial, the State had not sought review of that ruling, and the remaining live federal question was whether denying a new guilt trial violated equal protection.

He also objected to the breadth of the majority’s constitutional rule. Justice White would have used narrower language rather than constitutionalizing what he regarded as a broad rule of criminal discovery, an area he believed should initially be developed through legislation or procedural rulemaking after fuller consideration by the bench and bar.

Dissents

Justice Harlan

Reasoning

Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Black, maintained that the case presented only an equal-protection question: whether limiting relief to punishment was constitutional. Like Justice White, he thought the majority unnecessarily reached the due-process question concerning suppression of favorable evidence.

For Justice Harlan, the controlling question was whether Boblit’s statement would have been admissible at Brady’s original trial on guilt. If it would have been admissible, denying Brady a new guilt trial would violate equal protection; if not, limiting relief to punishment would be permissible.

He found Maryland law and the Maryland Court of Appeals’ opinion too unclear to decide that question. The lower court may have limited relief because it thought its post-conviction statute authorized a tailored remedy, rather than because the statement was inadmissible on guilt. Moreover, Maryland’s counsel acknowledged at Supreme Court argument that the statement would have been admissible for all purposes. Justice Harlan would have vacated and remanded for the Maryland court to clarify the relevant state-law issue.