BRADY v. MARYLAND Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A prosecutor withheld a co-defendant’s confession admitting to the actual killing. The Supreme Court held that suppressing favorable, material evidence requested by the defense violates due process, establishing a key prosecutorial disclosure duty.
Legal Significance: Established the landmark “Brady Rule”: prosecutors have a constitutional duty under the Due Process Clause to disclose all exculpatory evidence material to guilt or punishment to the defense upon request, regardless of prosecutorial intent.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Brady and a companion, Boblit, were prosecuted for murder committed during a robbery. At his separate trial, Brady admitted to participating in the robbery but claimed Boblit performed the actual killing. Before trial, Brady’s counsel requested to examine all of Boblit’s extrajudicial statements. The prosecution disclosed several statements but withheld one in which Boblit admitted that he, not Brady, had committed the homicide. Brady was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The existence of the suppressed statement came to light only after Brady’s conviction was affirmed. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the suppression of this evidence denied Brady due process. However, it concluded the evidence was only material to the question of punishment, not guilt, because Brady’s admitted participation in the robbery made him guilty of first-degree murder under Maryland’s felony-murder rule. Accordingly, the state court remanded the case for a new trial on the question of punishment only. Brady sought certiorari, arguing he was entitled to a new trial on both guilt and punishment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where that evidence is material to either guilt or punishment?
Yes. The suppression of evidence favorable and material to the defense violates Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercita
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where that evidence is material to either guilt or punishment?
Conclusion
Brady v. Maryland established a cornerstone of criminal procedure by creating an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nis
Legal Rule
The suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court extended the due process principles of Mooney v. Holohan, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates the