A U.S attorney called me one day in a case where i had a defense of public authority. And i was representing a small town constable who said i was honestly trying to conduct drugs deal. And the feds didn’t believe him and said, “No! you know, you were dealing drugs” and it turned out that Charlie Strauss and the Western district of Texas U.S attorney district’s office called me and said, ” Cynthia, I hate to tell you this but I got a sheriff here who is telling me your client was working for him. And so now, and from then forward my definition of Brady is, “If you hate to tell me it, it’s Brady!” and it’s a very simple definition. I went out to the saying in this article about then the Federal Rules had recently been amended to provide reciprocal discovery, and required notice of Alibi defense and defense based on public authority. Or you lost the right to represent the evidence. And i said; that impacts our 5th amendment right that requiring us to provide information to the government or the prosecutor at the pretrial stage, not only impinches upon our client’s 5th amendment right but also right to counsel and that, currently the government doesn’t even have to provide statements of witnesses until they testified or produced evidence favorable to the accused prior to trial, just during trial.
So, there’s nothing reciprocal about this. You know i get my client’s statement and a few other things, why do i have to give anything up? and i went on to say that the burden of the proof should stay where it belongs and not be put on the backs of the defense where we have to give up or make a pretrial disclosure of our strategy or require privileged information, so we have the right to present a defense in the like. I also said that, this evidence this Brady evidence is clearly defined in the cases, it’s just favorable evidence. We hear this with pretrial requirement all the time folks and that’s not what the cases say Brady is. Hi Beck!
1963 all over again! That’s the year Brady came out. And, while prosecutor say from their stand point; this is going to be evidence that exonerates our client, you know disproves their offense. It’s not from their stand point, that this evidence should be reviewed or determined if it needs to be produced to us. It’s that more visceral; i hate to give it to you. It helps you’re case; it hurts mine, as a prosecutor. So, what did the originating cases say? Well Brady said, that its evidence favorable to the accused. That’s what the opinion actually says and more importantly in Brady that was punishment evidence. It was evidence that although Brady was present, Bobblet who was also present was the one who actually did the killing.
So, it’s the originating case makes it clear, that it’s just favorable evidence and that it’s even punishment evidence; mitigating evidence, is Brady. So, go back to the first case and explain it to them. Say,” have a good read!” it’s just something that helps me in some way. Even if it doesn’t hurt your prosecution case! It’s not something, wins the whole case or exonerates. That’s not what it is. It’s just favorable to me.