Exculpatory Evidence and Brady Violations in NJ Criminal Cases
Exploring the Crucial Role of Evidence Disclosure, Exculpatory Evidence, and Brady Violations that may Serve as the Cornerstone of Your Criminal Defense Strategy in New Jersey
Understanding the requirements for evidence disclosure and identifying these violations can be pivotal in protecting your rights. At The Tormey Law Firm, our experienced criminal defense attorneys use decades in practice in criminal law to ensure that your rights are upheld when it comes to receiving the state’s evidence against you, as well as any information that may be pertinent to your defense. Having access to evidence that weakens the prosecutor’s case and any information that works in your favor protects your rights and allows us to build the best possible defense strategy when fighting to get your charges dismissed. The prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence that may be crucial to defend your criminal case violates your rights, and our team is readily equipped to bring such violations to the attention of the judge presiding over your case or in post-conviction hearings. We take our clients’ rights and protecting them seriously, and our criminal attorneys are dedicated to doing everything in our power to challenge your charges in a court of law. Contact us today at (201)-556-1570 for a free consultation to discuss your situation and find out how we can help.
Defining Exculpatory Evidence in New Jersey Criminal Law
Exculpatory evidence is one type of evidence that the state must disclose to the defense. This may be the evidence that exonerates you. For example, fingerprints or DNA evidence pointing to someone else having committed the crime you are accused of. Another type of exculpatory evidence raises doubt about whether you committed the crime that the state has charged you with. It includes photographs, tests, statements, records, recordings, or other evidence that demonstrates your innocence or seriously raises doubt that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Brady Rule that Set the Stage for Evidence Disclosure Duties
The prosecution’s duty to disclose evidence that helps the defendant’s case or hinders the state’s comes from the landmark case of Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). In that case, the ruling essentially determined that the state cannot hide evidence that helps the defense. It must be disclosed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brady that when the prosecution suppresses evidence “favorable to the accused” and “material” or critical to the guilt or sentencing of an accused, it is a due process violation guaranteed in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case refers to the constitutional requirement that the state use fair practices to prosecute people and not deprive them of their liberty without due process.
New Jersey’s version of the Brady Rule is outlined in Court Rule 3:13-3(b). Thus, the state’s evidence that proves a defendant’s innocence, justifies an accused’s actions, lessens the punishment for the criminal charges, or aids the defendant in receiving a more favorable outcome, is subject to disclosure. Also, any evidence that discredits the prosecution’s evidence is subject to the Brady Rule.
The prosecutor’s obligation to disclose such evidence is mandatory, regardless of mistakes or good intentions. When a prosecutor fails to turn over Brady material, a defendant’s conviction may be reversed as one option for a violation, they may be granted a new trial, and this occurrence may become key to getting their charges dismissed.
Obligation to Disclose Information Discrediting the State’s Witnesses
In the seminal case of Giglio vs. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), the Supreme Court’s ruling involved the prosecutor’s failure to disclose to the defense that the prosecutor promised immunity from prosecution to a key witness if they testified against Giglio in his forgery case. The court ruled the prosecutor’s suppression of that fact denied the defendant due process. Since the prosecutor’s case relied on the witness’s testimony, the evidence that would have affected the witness’s credibility was “material” to the outcome and should have been disclosed. The failure to disclose the discrediting evidence resulted in a new trial for the defendant.
The court addressed the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose impeachment or discrediting witness evidence regardless of mistake or good intentions. Under Giglio, a prosecutor must disclose discrediting or impeachable information about witnesses who may appear at trial, including any inconsistent statements they have made regarding essential elements of the case, their immunity deal with the prosecution, or other information that the defense could use to discredit the witness. Giglio places a duty on the state to ensure that a defendant is not deprived of material state evidence that could help the defense.
In the subsequent case State of New Jersey vs. Carter (1982), the murder convictions of the defendants were an issue when the key witnesses who identified Carter at the scene of the murders recanted their testimony. One of the issues was the failure of the prosecution to reveal that these crucial witnesses were potentially going to perjure themselves at trial and were promised a lighter sentence for their crimes in exchange for their testimony. One key witness, Bello, the prosecution knew had made inconsistent statements and failed to reveal that information for the defense to use for impeachment.
The non-disclosure violated the defendants’ due process rights. Carter was eventually released from prison when the conviction was reversed. The Carter case further reinforced the Brady Rule requiring prosecutors to reveal evidence that is favorable to the defendant, such as witness impeachment evidence for a material witness.
The Brady Rule Applies to All Prosecuting Members in NJ Criminal Cases
The Brady Rule requires the prosecution to disclose applicable evidence regardless of whether other prosecuting members are at fault for the non-disclosure. A subordinate or supporting team member’s fault does not excuse the lead prosecutor’s failure to disclose. Typically, the prosecution consists of a team of individuals involved in investigating and bringing a case to trial, including the lead prosecuting attorney and the others assisting the county prosecutor’s office, such as the Assistant Prosecutor and other law enforcement officers who are connected to the investigation and administration of criminal cases. All are considered the prosecution in a criminal case for purposes of exculpatory evidence disclosure.
According to case law and the New Jersey Attorney General’s Directive 2019-6, the prosecution is responsible for gathering and disclosing Brady material to the defense in all cases. The prosecution is obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence. The defense does not have to request it. In addition, a prosecutor is liable for not disclosing Brady material regardless of whether they are aware of the potential exculpatory evidence, so long as other prosecution team members are aware of the evidence.
Identifying Exculpatory Evidence / Brady Material
Brady material includes exculpatory evidence exonerating the defendant, evidence discrediting the prosecution’s witnesses, evidence impeaching a witness, or evidence proving someone else committed the crime. Any evidence that clears the defendant of guilt, disproves the prosecution’s evidence, reduces punishment for the charges, or could result in a better outcome for the defendant, is considered Brady material.
Evidence that a prosecutor must produce or allow a defendant to inspect may include recorded confessions, the defendant’s books, and papers, test results or reports of the defendant’s physical or mental condition, the defendant’s conviction history, witness information, statements that the prosecutor has regarding the defendant’s conviction history, police reports, expert names and reports, and potential witnesses that the prosecution may call at trial.
The defense will want to know about exculpatory evidence to raise doubt to a jury responsible for determining guilt or innocence. An attorney wants to show the jury that the state has not met its beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof in convicting you. If the state has hidden exculpatory evidence, a defense attorney may move the court to dismiss or retry the case against you or take other actions against the prosecution.
Why it is Important to Consult a Criminal Defense Attorney if Believe the Prosecution Failed to Disclose Evidence in Your Case
In practical terms, criminal defense attorneys such as those on our team at The Tormey Law Firm who discover, or are alerted by our clients, of potentially withheld state evidence, can pursue all of the options to protect our clients’ rights and ensure fairness in the judicial process. When a Brady violation occurs, you may have recourse such as a new trial, reversal of a conviction, or sanctioning the prosecution by preventing them from presenting withheld evidence. Having an attorney to track the evidence presented at trial or discover withheld evidence after the trial is essential to you receiving the justice you deserve.
A Brady Rule violation can result in reversing your conviction or an advantage at trial when the jury is instructed not to consider withheld evidence. If a conviction has already occurred and we identify a Brady violation, our attorneys may be able to challenge a client’s conviction and secure a new trial. Understanding the rules and procedures for disclosure of exculpatory evidence and any material that may be favorable to the defense also allows us to thoroughly prepare for cross-examining witnesses and raising doubt in the jurors’ minds about whether an acquittal is the justified outcome in a client’s case. A jury may be likely to have doubts that result in the charges being dismissed when evidentiary sanctions weaken the prosecution’s evidence.
Contact The Tormey Law Firm to Get Started with Your Effective Criminal Defense in New Jersey
If you are facing criminal charges in New Jersey, you need a dedicated criminal defense attorney who will fight tooth and nail for your rights and your innocence. With a lengthy track record of success in courts across the state, our accomplished team includes lawyers who have been recognized among the Top 10 Criminal Lawyers in New Jersey by the American Jurist Institute, among the Top 40 Attorneys Under 40 in the Nation by the National Trial Lawyers Association, and among those selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Our firm’s founder, Travis J. Tormey, also maintains a perfect 5-star rating on Avvo.com, where he has also received the Client’s Choice Award every year since 2012. When you need dedication, skill, strategic insight, and a criminal defense team who fights to win, our firm stands ready to assist you. Contact us today at (201)-556-1570 to speak with a New Jersey criminal defense attorney if you believe that the prosecution violated your rights to evidentiary disclosure. Begin your defense with a free consultation.
