Fifty years ago in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure to disclose favorable information to a defendant in a criminal prosecution violates the constitution when that information is material to guilt or punishment. This common law standard, often referred to as the Brady rule, has created confusion about what information must be disclosed, when it must be disclosed, and what remedies exist when favorable information is not disclosed.

The Board of Directors adopted a resolution on the Brady Checklists.

We are in the era of electronic discovery and ever-increasing information dumps. Defense lawyers are being provided with responses to discovery requests that contain terabytes of information. How do we advise a client concerning the strength or weakness of the government’s case if we must first examine and organize a terabyte of information?

NACDL held a live webcast interview with the late Senator Ted Stevens’ attorney Robert M. Cary, of Williams & Connolly LLP, who discussed the ramifications of the case and the investigation, and the future of federal discovery reform. 

Webcast on the need for criminal discovery reform and the dangers of inadequate or discovery rules and prosecutors' failure to disclose favorable evidence. Featuring NACDL President (2011-2012) Lisa M. Wayne.

Reply to Government’s Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion Pursuant to Rule 33, Fed. R. Crim. P., for a New Trial

U.S. v. Basaaly Moalin 3:10-cr-04246-JM (S.D. Cal.)

United States' Response and Opposition to Defendants' Joint Motion for New Trial

U.S. v. Basaaly Moalin 3:10-cr-04246-JM (S.D. Cal.)

United States’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery

U.S. v. Fortunato Rodelo Lara 3:12-cr-00030-EMC (N.D. Cal.)

Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery

U.S. v. Fortunato Rodelo Lara 3:12-cr-00030-EMC (N.D. Cal.)

The authors offer a proposal that, if adopted by state and federal judges, would solve many of the problems that have hindered meaningful compliance with Brady over the last 50 years.

Defense attorney Diana Parker writes that dismissals of federal criminal cases often arise from prosecutorial misconduct in areas related to the government’s failure to create or produce discovery. She opines that the federal government should be confident and liberal in making full disclosure in its cases because, presumably, the government critically examined the cases before bringing charges.

Brady v. Maryland is 60 years old, but defense lawyers still are not receiving all the Brady evidence that is available. Thousands of individuals have been exonerated by DNA and other evidence, and Brady violations have contributed to the injustices suffered. For this reason alone, defense lawyers must be proactive in their Brady explorations. Federal defender V. Natasha Perdew Silas explains what being proactive means.

Many recent cases have exposed the fact that federal prosecutors, whether through negligence or by design, all too often fail to abide by their constitutional duty to disclose information favorable to the defendant. To help ensure fairness in federal criminal proceedings, the Board of Directors of NACDL has endorsed model legislation drafted by NACDL's Discovery Reform Task Force that would require the government to disclose all information favorable to the accused in relation to any issue to be determined in a federal criminal case. [Released May 2011]

The integrity of the criminal justice system relies on the guarantees made to the actors operating within it. For the accused, the guarantee of fair process includes not only the right to put on a defense, but to put on a complete defense. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of this guarantee over 50 years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, when it declared that failure to disclose favorable information violates the constitution when that information is material. This guarantee, however, is frequently unmet. [Released November 2014]

NACDL created The Commission to Reform the Federal Grand Jury, drawing on the expertise of a variety of professionals throughout the criminal justice system. Commissioners spent two years examining the need for changes in the grand jury process and produced a Federal Grand Jury Bill of Rights based on their findings. The ten reforms set forth in this Bill of Rights, largely echoing those proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA) more than 20 years ago, would restore balance to the grand jury process and better protect against unwarranted prosecutions. [Released May 2000]