Congress Should Reform Federal Criminal Discovery to End 'Brady Violations'

A panel of criminal justice system experts is calling on Congress to pass legislation ensuring federal prosecutors adhere to their constitutional obligation to disclose certain information to defendants and providing appropriate penalties when they don’t.  So far, The Constitution Project’s Call for Congress to Reform Federal Criminal Discovery has been endorsed by close to 150 current and former prosecutors, law enforcement officers, judges and defense lawyers, all with substantial professional experience within the criminal justice system. 

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the failure of prosecutors to share with defendants evidence favorable to their cases, whether intentional or inadvertent, violates the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process,” said TCP President Virginia Sloan.  “Yet, despite the Court’s clear mandate, all too often defendants are not given the evidence that they are constitutionally entitled to receive,” she said.

TCP is urging Congress to adopt legislation that will: create a uniform standard for what prosecutors must disclose; require prompt disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense counsel unless a judge rules otherwise; and establish strong penalties and remedies for non-disclosure.  Sloan said TCP is working with a coalition of advocacy organizations from across the political spectrum to advance legislation, and would continue to solicit additional signers for its statement.

The constitutional obligation to disclose evidence arises from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 decision holding that prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to provide the defense with “evidence favorable to an accused . . . where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.”  The failure by a prosecutor to disclose appropriate information is often referred to as a “Brady violation.”

Defendants Have Right to Effective Counsel During Plea Bargains, Supreme Court Rules

The Constitution Project applauded the recent decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, in which the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of the right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations preceding trial. According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, roughly 19 out of every 20 criminal cases end in a plea agreement rather than going to trial. "The constitutionally guaranteed right to effective assistance of counsel is absolutely fundamental to the administration of justice," TCP President Virginia Sloan said in a statement, "and, in a system where plea bargaining has almost completely displaced resolution through trial, we are pleased the Court recognized that the right to counsel during plea negotiations is just as important as at trial." Ms. Sloan was also quoted in a Los Angeles Times article on the decisions.

Judge and Jury Ignorant of Severe Abuse Death Row Inmate Endured

Robert Gattis suffered extreme and ongoing physical and sexual abuse as a child and adolescent, but the judge and jury never heard about this information was not shared during his trial or sentencing. Gattis has also expressed deep remorse for the murder that he committed and been a model of good behavior throughout his time on death row.  Arguing that the death penalty should be reserved for “the worst of the worst offenders,” a number of former judges and prosecutors, some recruited by TCP, wrote to the Governor of Delaware and the Delaware Board of Pardons urging them to grant Gattis clemency. The calls for clemency from these former judges and prosecutors were bolstered by additional voices of support, including 73 faith leaders and numerous mental health professionals. Gattis is scheduled to be executed on January 20, 2012.

Supreme Court Ruling on Death Row Inmate’s Case Preserves Justice

On January 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Maples v Thomas in a 7-2 vote in favor of petitioner Cory Maples, who is on Alabama’s death row. The decision held that a lower federal court could consider Maples’ federal habeas petition despite the fact that he missed a filing deadline in state court, which normally would cause his claims to be procedurally defaulted in federal court. Maples missed the previous filing deadline because his lawyers left their law firm without notifying him or the courts.  The Constitution Project has supported Maples since 2009, filing amicus curiae briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a recent statement, President of The Constitution Project Virginia Sloan, said, “Certainly, when a death row inmate is completely abandoned by his volunteer, out-of-state counsel like Maples was, justice requires excusing the missed filing deadline,” and lauded the Court for, “...prioritiz[ing] justice over technicalities, fundamental fairness over procedural rules.”  Ms. Sloan’s sentiments were noted in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times and the American Constitution Society featured a piece on the case written by TCP Senior Counsel Mary Schmid Mergler.