The Duty of Prosecutors to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Prosecutors must disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense attorneys in Oklahoma. “Exculpatory” evidence tends to show that the defendant is not guilty or shows that the crime committed is a lesser offense (e.g. manslaughter instead of murder). Both state rules of professional responsibility and a number of Supreme Court cases explain this mandate.

Oklahoma Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 3.8(d) states: “A prosecutor shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense”. The Code of Professional Responsibility must be followed by all lawyers practicing in the state. Rule 3.8(d) reinforces the decisions in several Supreme Court cases regarding prosecutors’ failure to turn over evidence. The leading case on this topic is Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

In Brady, two defendants, Brady and Boblit, participated in a man’s murder. Boblit made five confessions to the police. The prosecutor gave Brady’s defense attorney only four of the five confessions. In the fifth confession, Boblit admitted that he was the one who killed the man, not Brady. The defense attorney never received the fifth confession and it was not presented to the jury at trial. Brady was convicted of murder. Brady’s appellate attorney then learned that the prosecution never gave the defense attorney Boblit’s fifth confession. Brady at p. 84.

The Supreme Court found that under the Fourteenth Amendment, “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady at p. 87. The court viewed disclosure of exculpatory evidence as a matter of fairness to the accused defendant. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985). Hiding this evidence, whether maliciously or by accident, violates the defendant’s right to due process of the law. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (1972).

Later cases developed a two-part test for evaluating exculpatory evidence, asking first whether the evidence is favorable to the defense, and second, whether it is material. Material evidence is that which, if not presented, would not result in a fair trial. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 (1995). Further, prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence in the hands of the police to the defense. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-281 (1999). “In order to comply with Brady the individual prosecut[or] has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf.” Id. The prosecutor must do more than search his office’s own records – he must seek out information from the police to comply with specific requests from defense attorneys. Id.

To learn more about exculpatory evidence in DUI cases, seek out the local DUI attorney who cares about seeking the best outcomes for his clients. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor, is familiar with seeking evidence from the prosecutor’s office and the police. Schedule a case evaluation by visiting Patterson Law Firm online or calling Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.