Discovery is the formal process by which the prosecution discloses non-privileged information relevant to a criminal investigation prior to trial. It provides the basic foundation for accuracy and reliability in a criminal case. It is a crucial safeguard that helps make our legal system more transparent, ensures a fairer procedure, and helps protect against wrongful convictions. All other aspects of our constitutional system, such as due process and assistance of counsel, depend on complete discovery.
In Expanded Discovery in Criminal Cases: A Policy Review(pdf), The Justice Project offers recommendations and solutions for expanding discovery law. The policy review includes information on discovery procedures and law, case studies, states which have enacted expanded discovery legislation, voices of support, and a model policy.
The record of wrongful convictions in this country has demonstrated that exculpatory evidence can be withheld for years, even decades, while an innocent person sits in prison. Whether the state fails to disclose evidence inadvertently or intentionally, clear rules about what is subject to discovery – and clear consequences for failure to disclose discoverable information – minimizes the risk of these mistakes.
Uniform, mandatory, and enforced discovery laws are needed to protect against wrongful convictions.
The Justice Project’s Recommendations for Expanding Discovery in Criminal Cases
|
Related Studies:
New York County Lawyers’ Association, Discovery in New York Criminal Courts: Survey Report and Recommendations, 2006.
Stephanos Bibas, “The Story of Brady v. Maryland,”in Criminal Procedure Stories (Carol Steiker, ed. 2005).
Jannice E. Joseph, “The New Russian Roulette: Brady Revisited,” 17 Cap. Def. J. 33 (Fall 2004): 33-60.
Tamara Graham, “Death by Ambush: A Plea for Discovery of Evidence in Aggravation,” 17 Cap. Def. J. 321 (Spring 2005): 321-346.
Expanded Discovery Resource List
Related Cases:
Earl Charles
In Georgia, Earl Charles spent nearly four years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of double murder. During his trial, evidence of the suggestive nature of the identification procedures and vital information on the informant’s incentive to lie was not disclosed to the defense. Independent evidence showing he was in another state at the time of the crime eventually helped exonerate Charles, and during civil litigation, the suppressed evidence finally came to light. Read about Earl Charles
Clarence Brandley
In August 1980, a sixteen-year-old high school student was raped and murdered during a girls’ volleyball tournament in Conroe, Texas. During the investigation and subsequent trial, authorities suppressed evidence that placed other suspects at the scene of the crime, instead focusing their entire investigation and prosecution on Clarence Brandley, the superintendent janitor of the school. In 1981, Brandley was convicted of murder and spent almost ten years on death row until finally being exonerated in 1990. Read about Clarence Brandley
Michael Evans and Paul Terry
Michael Evans and Paul Terry each spent 27 years in an Illinois prison after being wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a young girl in 1976. Evans and Terry’s convictions followed trials in which material evidence concerning the sole eyewitness had been withheld from their attorneys. In 2003, Evans and Terry were released after DNA testing exonerated both men, and in January 2005, they were granted a full pardon by Governor Roger Blagojevich. Read about Michael Evans and Paul Terry
