I write as someone deeply concerned about a critical issue: our nation’s failure to hold prosecutors accountable when they break rules designed to ensure all Americans are treated fairly and equitably by our justice system.

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.

Discovery rules that leave defendants in the dark about the evidence against them undermine fairness and due process and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. Criminal discovery can be divided into two categories: (1) disclosure of so-called “exculpatory evidence” that is constitutionally required under the Supreme Court’s 1963 Brady opinion and (2) disclosure that is required by statute or court rule. There is great variation among jurisdictions regarding the amount of discovery required by statute/rule and even the Brady decision.

Motion to Compel or Dismiss in response to document dump from prosecution without meaningful description of files

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.

Race Data Matters: Using Expert Testimony and Social Science Data about Discriminatory Policing to Win Pretrial Motions: Part II presented by Alison Siegler, Clinical Law Professor, University of Chicago Law School

Race Matters I: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
September 14-15, 2017 | Detroit, MI

Cell Site Simulators, also known as IMSI catchers or Stingrays, mimic cell towers and trick phones within their radius into communicating with them instead, during which they are able to collect information about the device. Using a cell site simualtor is a Fourth Amendment Search, sometimes conducted without a court order. This resource explains this technology works, their judical authorization, how to identify this evidence in a case, and how to challenge that evidence. 

The below primer is a fact sheet on Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs). This software can run on a wide variety of video streams and captures information about vehicles as they pass including the license plate number, make and model of the car, the time and location, and sometimes the occupants. The primer explains how law enforcement use this information and walks through some potential arguments for defense lawyers challenging this evidence in their cases. 

Brief Amici Curiae of ACLU, ACLU of Northern California and Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery

U.S. v. Diaz-Rivera 12-cr-00030-EMC/EDL (N.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.)

NACDL endorses model legislation to promote nationwide discovery reform and improve the fairness of criminal justice systems.

Complaint filed in Duncan v. State of Michigan, a civil rights class action brought pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment alleging inadequate funding and oversight of indigent defense services. 
 

Long-Suppressed Evidence Will Be Key to Jeffrey MacDonald’s Day in Court - Washington, DC (Sept. 14, 2012) – After spending the past 33 years in prison resulting from an unfair trial and a wrongful conviction, former Army Captain and medical doctor Jeffrey R. MacDonald is scheduled to get a meaningful day in court on Monday. The date is fortuitous, yet auspicious –  September 17 is Constitution Day, commemorating the date that the Constitution was signed in Philadelphia 225 years ago.