(no subject)

[theweaselking]

IANAL, but did the USSC just gut Brady and rule that the prosecution can't be held responsible for failing to share exculpatory evidence during discovery?

(The 5-4 faith-based vs fact-based judge split tends to imply heavily that yes, they just did.)

Comments

[publius1.livejournal.com]

That's certainly what it looks like to me. They didn't just fail to share, they HID it.

Essentially, the USSC said that the entire DA's office couldn't be held liable for the actions of one prosecutor. That is a position I find highly, highly suspect!

[dartmouth05.livejournal.com]

No, no, no. The USSC said the entire DA's office couldn't be held liable for the action of four to five prosecutors.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Hah, right! I stand corrected.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm not a lawyer. I know the law that involves my job and what I learned in a couple of courses, and that's it.

Which is to say, there's jargon I can follow and jargon where I think I might have missed something.

And I *think* this just said that *nobody* can be held responsible for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, which, combined with Scalia's "lack of guilt is not a valid defense against the death penalty" position, would tend to me to imply that hidden evidence means nothing and hiding evidence isn't a crime.

Am I wrong?

[dartmouth05.livejournal.com]

You're a bit wrong. Individual prosecutors can be held responsible for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. What the Supreme Court decision says is that a prosecutor's office failing to train its prosecutors about Brady doesn't give rise to a claim against the office. This is still a horrible decision that ignores both the law and the facts and I firmly agree with the dissent. But it doesn't entirely gut Brady-the individual prosecutors can and should be disciplined, severely. Will they? I doubt it-prosecutors almost never are.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Is a Brady violation still grounds for reversal?

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

Yes. Brady was grounds for the reversal in the case that led to this one, too. This case is about a guy being convicted, getting that reversed under Brady - and none of that was touched or even at issue - but then suing the office of the individual prosecutor that committed the Brady violation, rather than the at-fault prosecutors themselves.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

That makes me feel better. Thank you!

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

That's not how quite how the syllabus reads.

Short version, because I really don't want to get into the long version, §1983 exists so that if a state officer deprives you of your rights as part of their job, you can sue the state office itself for the damages. Which is what this person was trying to do. The thing is, for a §1983 claim to stick, you need to show that it was following the official policy that caused your deprivation of rights, not just that this individual fucked up. And this plaintiff was claiming that the mere fact that his Brady violation happened at all was a sign of deficient Brady training in the office, and that counted as the policy that harmed him. So he lost. Because you need to show that it's a systematic pattern, not just an isolated incident.

The person who lost/concealed/whatever the evidence, causing the Brady violation, can be held responsible. But if you want to hold the city responsible, and get at city coffers for damages, you need to show more than just "this guy fucked me over", and this plaintiff didn't. This doesn't hurt Brady at all.

This isn't a case to be worried about. The thing to be worried about isn't even Scalia's position there, though that is itself worrisome. It's Roberts's whole "You can't apply Brady post-conviction for newly discovered evidence. Brady exists to protect the innocent, and we have proof that you're guilty - you were convicted."