Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Suppression of material favorable evidence
Leading case
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
How courts have described it
holding that prosecution violates defendant’s due process rights by withholding evidence from defense that is material to either guilt or punishment
United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006)
holding that the prosecution's suppression of evidence material to guilt or punishment violates due process, regardless of the prosecution’s good or bad faith
United States v. David Gene Lewis, 368 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2004)
holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material evidence favorable to the accused
United States v. Perez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003)
holding that the prosecution’s suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused violates due process
United States v. Francisco Mendoza-Prado, Aka, Paco, 314 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2002)
holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant material to either guilt or punishment violates due process
Wilson v. Lawrence County, 260 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2001)
holding that suppression by the prosecution of material evidence that is favorable to an accused, upon request, violates the accused’s right to due process of law
Thomas Lucidore v. New York State Division of Parole, 209 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2000)
holding that a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence favorable to and requested by a defendant violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or to punishment
holding that the prosecution's suppression of material evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates due process
Harry Gomez v. Rodney J. Ahitow, Warden, and Roland W. Burris, 29 F.3d 1128 (7th Cir. 1994)
holding that the prosecution’s suppression of evidence from a criminal defendant violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”
Brown v. City Of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2023)
holding that prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment
Glendale More Jr. v. State of Iowa, 880 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa 2016)
holding that suppression of evidence upon request, where the evidence is favorable to an accused and material to guilt or punishment, is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
holding that suppression of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
Commonwealth v. Bussell, 226 S.W.3d 96 (Ky. 2007)
holding that the state's failure to provide defendant with favorable, material evidence violates due process
Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2006)
holding that the deliberate suppression of material evidence favorable to the defense denies due process
Fajeriak v. State, 520 P.2d 795 (Alaska 1974)
holding that a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or punishment
International Union v. Port of Seattle, 264 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)
holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendant’s right to due process where the evidence is material
State Ex Rel. White v. Gray, 141 S.W.3d 460 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)
Related doctrines
- Cumulative Materiality of Suppressed Evidence (Brady)
- Duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence absent a specific request
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.