Brady violation in Pennsylvania

2026Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873, 887 (Pa. 2011) (detailing the elements a defendant bears the burden of proving to establish a Brady violation).

2026Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873, 887 (Pa. 2011) (detailing the elements a defendant bears the burden of proving to establish a Brady violation).

2026As the Supreme Court has explained, a Brady violation may constitute governmental interference; however, an appellant may not “begin with a discussion of the merits of a Brady claim; rather [he] must begin with a discussion of why the instant petition was timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). -8- J-S03012-26 To satisfy the newly discovered facts exception, a petitioner must plead and prove “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii

2026As the Supreme Court has explained, a Brady violation may constitute governmental interference; however, an appellant may not “begin with a discussion of the merits of a Brady claim; rather [he] must begin with a discussion of why the instant petition was timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). -8- J-S03012-26 To satisfy the newly discovered facts exception, a petitioner must plead and prove “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii

2025He did not maintain those digital images on the camera card, but transferred them without editing to a “non-rewritable DVD/CD.” A Brady violation requires three (3) elements to be established. “(1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches; (2) the prosecutor has suppressed the evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence is material, meaning that prejudice must have ensued.” Commonwealth v. Bagnall, 235 A.3d 1075 , 1084 n.10 (Pa. 2020); Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 854 (Pa. 2005). [] Appellant is

2025He did not maintain those digital images on the camera card, but transferred them without editing to a “non-rewritable DVD/CD.” A Brady violation requires three (3) elements to be established. “(1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches; (2) the prosecutor has suppressed the evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence is material, meaning that prejudice must have ensued.” Commonwealth v. Bagnall, 235 A.3d 1075 , 1084 n.10 (Pa. 2020); Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 854 (Pa. 2005). [] Appellant is

2026See Commonwealth v. Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 28 (Pa. 2019) (“It is well-settled a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception.”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 28 (Pa. 2019) (“It is well-settled a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception.”).

2026The Court originally pulled from federal case law in Commonwealth v. Paddy, 800 A.2d 294, 305-06 (Pa. 2002), when we stated that no Brady violation occurs … if the defendant knew, or with reasonable diligence could have known, of such evidence, see United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256, 262 (3d Cir. 1984) [overruled by Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 834 F.3d 263 (3d [J-31-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 14 Cir. 2016)]; United States v. Campagnuolo, 592 F.2d 852, 861 (5th Cir.1979).4 … 4 But cf. Banks v. Reynolds, 54 F.3d 1508 (10th Cir. 1995) (reasoning that, given the

2025For asuccessful Brady violation case, the defendant "must show that ( 1) the prosecution concealed evidence; (2) which was either exculpatory evidence or impeachment evi- prosecution concealed evidence; (2) which was either exculpatory evidence or impeachment evi- dence favorable to [the accused]; and (3) he was prejudiced by the concealment." Commonwealth dence favorable to [the accused]; and (3) he was prejudiced by the concealment." Commonwealth v. Simpson, 620 Pa. 60, 79 , 66 A.3d 253,269 (2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Paddy, 569 Pa. 47 , v. Simpson, 620 Pa. 60, 79 , 66 A.3d 253, 269 (2013

2026Namely, the Majority recounts the Brady standard and tacks on that “Brady is not violated when the appellant knew or, with reasonable diligence, could have uncovered the evidence in question, or when the evidence was available to the defense from other sources.” Majority Op. at 23 (quoting Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 608 (Pa. 2018) (emphasis added)).

2025Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 638 Pa. 336 , 156 A.3d 197 , 209- 10 (Pa. 2016) (failure to raise Brady claim at trial or on direct appeal resulted in waiver); Commonwealth v. Roney, 622 Pa. 1 , 79 A.3d 595, 609 (Pa. 2013) (Brady issues which could have been raised at trial and/or on direct appeal but were not, were waived for collateral review).

2025The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds that a Brady violation will not be found where The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds that a Brady violation will not be found where a defendant could have uncovered the supposedly undisclosed evidence with reasonable diligen defendant could have uncovered the supposedly undisclosed evidence with reasonable diligence - See Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715 , 726, Fn. 8 (Pa. 2023) citing Commonwealth See Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715 , 726, Fn. 8 (Pa. 2023) citing Commonwealth J 14 14 Bagnell, Bagnell, 235 A.3d 1075 , 1075, 1091(Pa. 1091(Pa

2025The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds that a Brady violation will not be found where The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds that a Brady violation will not be found where a defendant could have uncovered the supposedly undisclosed evidence with reasonable diligen defendant could have uncovered the supposedly undisclosed evidence with reasonable diligence - See Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715 , 726, Fn. 8 (Pa. 2023) citing Commonwealth See Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715 , 726, Fn. 8 (Pa. 2023) citing Commonwealth J 14 14 Bagnell, Bagnell, 235 A.3d 1075 , 1075, 1091(Pa. 1091(Pa

2026See Commonwealth v. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538, 547 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“[T]o establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the Commonwealth, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material, in that its omission resulted in prejudice to the defendant.”) (emphasis added).

2026See Commonwealth v. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538, 547 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“[T]o establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the Commonwealth, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material, in that its omission resulted in prejudice to the defendant.”) (emphasis added).

2026In the PCRA context, a petitioner must demonstrate that the alleged Brady violation “so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” Ly, 980 A.2d at 76 (citation omitted).

2026In the PCRA context, a petitioner must demonstrate that the alleged Brady violation “so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” Ly, 980 A.2d at 76 (citation omitted).

2026Under the current Brady doctrine, a prosecutor must disclose evidence that is both favorable to the accused and “material either to guilt or punishment.” Id. at 87 .

2026Under the current Brady doctrine, a prosecutor must disclose evidence that is both favorable to the accused and “material either to guilt or punishment.” Id. at 87 .

2022See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1, 31 (Pa. 2008) (layered ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails where underlying Brady claim lacks merit).

2020Commonwealth v. Paddy, 569 Pa. 47 , 800 A.2d 294, 305 (2002)….[A] Brady violation only exists when the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, i.e., when ____________________________________________ 7 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963). 8 “A Brady claim is cognizable on collateral appeal under the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Simpson, 620 Pa. 60 , 66 A.3d 253, 264 (2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Tedford, 598 Pa. 639 , 960 A.2d 1 , 30 n. 19 (2008)).

2021Additionally, “a - 15 - J-A02014-21 prosecutor’s disclosure obligation encompasses only information known or readily ascertainable by the government actors involved in the prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767, 792 (Pa. 2013). “[N]o Brady violation occurs where the parties had equal access to the information or if the defendant knew or could have uncovered such evidence with reasonable diligence.” Commonwealth v. Bagnall, 235 A.3d 1075 , 1091 (Pa. 2020) (cleaned up).

2020When the PCRA court denies a petition without an evidentiary hearing, we “examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in light of the record certified before it in order to determine if the PCRA court erred in its determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact in controversy and in denying relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238, 1240 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted). “[T]o establish a Brady violation, an appellant must prove three elements: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exc

2024See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1248 (Pa. 2006) (“It is well established that no Brady violation occurs where the parties had equal access to the information or if the defendant knew or could have uncovered such evidence with reasonable diligence.” (internal citation omitted)).

2024The learned Majority accurately observes that there can be no Brady violation “when the defense has equal access the allegedly withheld evidence.” Majority at 13 (citing Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1248 (Pa. 2006)).

2026A Brady violation, on the other hand, occurs if the prosecution, before trial, suppresses “evidence favorable to the accused” and “the evidence is material either to guilty or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 133 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).

2026A Brady violation, on the other hand, occurs if the prosecution, before trial, suppresses “evidence favorable to the accused” and “the evidence is material either to guilty or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 133 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).

2025However, “[n]o Brady violation occurs when the defendant knew, or with reasonable diligence, could have discovered the evidence in question.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431, 451 (Pa. 2011)).

2025See Paddy, supra. As to Officer Pownall’s alleged status as a “dirty cop” necessitating some sort of evidentiary disclosure from the Commonwealth, all the discrete pieces of information contained in the DAO Letter occurred years after Brown’s trial and direct appeal.4 Accordingly, the facts contained within the DAO Letter could not be relevant for a determination on a Brady violation in connection with Brown’s case.

2025A Brady claim has three elements: “(1) the prosecutor has suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence, whether exculpatory or impeaching, is helpful to the defendant; and (3) the suppression prejudiced the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220, 244 (Pa. 2006).

2025A Brady claim has three elements: “(1) the prosecutor has suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence, whether exculpatory or impeaching, is helpful to the defendant; and (3) the suppression prejudiced the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220, 244 (Pa. 2006).

2025See Bomar, supra (stating that there is no Brady violation when a defendant knew or with reasonable diligence could have uncovered the evidence that the state allegedly failed to disclose). -6- J-A02004-25 Id. at 17.

2024As to that prong of the Brady standard, “prejudice occurs when a defendant shows a ‘reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715 , 730 (Pa. 2023), quoting Commonwealth v. Bomar, 104 A.3d 1179, 1189 (Pa. 2014).

2024We begin by noting that our courts have held that “[i]t is well-settled a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception.” -7- J-A15045-24 Commonwealth v. Natividad, 650 Pa. 328 , 356, 200 A.3d 11, 28 (2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 566 Pa. 323 , 781 A.2d 94, 98 (2001)).

2024We begin by noting that our courts have held that “[i]t is well-settled a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception.” -7- J-A15045-24 Commonwealth v. Natividad, 650 Pa. 328 , 356, 200 A.3d 11, 28 (2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 566 Pa. 323 , 781 A.2d 94, 98 (2001)).

2026Preliminarily, we recognize that a “Brady claim is cognizable on collateral appeal under the PCRA.” Simpson, 66 A.3d at 264 n.16 (citing, inter alia, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi)).

2026In Simpson, we acknowledged that “[a] Brady claim is cognizable on collateral appeal under the PCRA.” 66 A.3d at 264 n.16.

2025See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 276 (Pa. 2011) (explaining that “[t]o establish a Brady violation, [a defendant] must prove[:] [1] the evidence [at issue] was favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches; [2] the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice ensued”).

2025See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 276 (Pa. 2011) (explaining that “[t]o establish a Brady violation, [a defendant] must prove[:] [1] the evidence [at issue] was favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches; [2] the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice ensued”).

2025A court reviewing a Brady claim does not review the evidence in isolation but instead must evaluate the omission of evidence “in the context of the entire record.” Commonwealth v. Dennis, 17 A.3d 297, 309 (Pa. 2011).

2020“Under Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)], the prosecution's failure to divulge exculpatory evidence is a violation of a defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.” Id. “[T]he prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Id. (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.3d.2d 481(1985)). “[T]o establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the Common

2026Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015). -5- J-S02030-26 (unpublished memorandum at 15-17) (accompanying analysis in affirming PCRA court’s determination that Appellant failed to establish a Brady violation related to evidence of Detective Jenkins’s misconduct).

2026Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015). -5- J-S02030-26 (unpublished memorandum at 15-17) (accompanying analysis in affirming PCRA court’s determination that Appellant failed to establish a Brady violation related to evidence of Detective Jenkins’s misconduct).

2026“Prosecutors must perform their duties under Brady in conjunction with the police, and a Brady violation may occur where evidence in the possession of the police is not disclosed to the defendant, even if the prosecutor did not know about it.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 177 A.3d 359, 372 (Pa. Super. -6- J-S42005-25 2017), citing Commonwealth v. Burke, 781 A.2d 1136, 1142 (Pa. 2001).

2026“Prosecutors must perform their duties under Brady in conjunction with the police, and a Brady violation may occur where evidence in the possession of the police is not disclosed to the defendant, even if the prosecutor did not know about it.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 177 A.3d 359, 372 (Pa. Super. -6- J-S42005-25 2017), citing Commonwealth v. Burke, 781 A.2d 1136, 1142 (Pa. 2001).

2025“Although a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception, the petitioner must plead and prove that the failure to previously raise these claims was the result of interference by government officials, and that the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248, 1253 (Pa. 2006).

2025“Although a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception, the petitioner must plead and prove that the failure to previously raise these claims was the result of interference by government officials, and that the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248, 1253 (Pa. 2006).

2026The only portion of Appellant’s argument that appears to address his Brady issue is the following, verbatim language: prior to May 17, 2023 the day the Appellant was arrested, an unnamed CI, [CI 1], reached out to law enforcement about the Appellant , that communication by / between law enforcement an CI 1 was “Not Turned Over” to the defence inpart or as a whole so the defence was unaware of CI 1’s back round, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963); also see US v. Agurs, 437 U.S. 97 , 103-107, 96 S.Ct. 2392 (1976), even if the failure to turnover the CI’s statem

2026“For a defendant to establish a Brady violation, he must show that: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence at issue is favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material, meaning that prejudice must have ensued.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 579 Pa. 119, 161 , 855 A.2d 726, 751 (2004) (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)).

2022However, “the prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Id. at 675 [.] [T]o establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the Commonwealth, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material, in that its omission resulted in prejudice to the defendant. [Commonwealth v.] Dennis, 17 A.3d [297,] 308 [(Pa. 2011)].

2022However, “the prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Id. at 675 [.] [T]o establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the Commonwealth, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material, in that its omission resulted in prejudice to the defendant. [Commonwealth v.] Dennis, 17 A.3d [297,] 308 [(Pa. 2011)].

2025To establish a Brady violation, Brown must show that “(1) evidence was suppressed by the state, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant, either because it was exculpatory or because it could have been used for impeachment; and (3) the evidence was material, in that its omission resulted in prejudice to the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Willis. 46 A.3d 648, 656 (Pa. 2012).

2025To establish a Brady violation, Brown must show that “(1) evidence was suppressed by the state, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant, either because it was exculpatory or because it could have been used for impeachment; and (3) the evidence was material, in that its omission resulted in prejudice to the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Willis. 46 A.3d 648, 656 (Pa. 2012).

2026Id. at 1271-72. 98 Id. at 1271 (“While the additional requirements [of Section 9543(a)(2)(vi)] are consistent with a Brady claim, . . . none of these requirements exist in § 9545(b)(1)(ii).”). 99 Id. [J-56-2025] - 33 The newly discovered facts exception “is not so narrow as to limit itself to only claims involving ‘after-discovered evidence.’”100 A petitioner may satisfy the timeliness exception even if his or her underlying, substantive claim turns out to be meritless.

2026Id. at 1271-72. 98 Id. at 1271 (“While the additional requirements [of Section 9543(a)(2)(vi)] are consistent with a Brady claim, . . . none of these requirements exist in § 9545(b)(1)(ii).”). 99 Id. [J-56-2025] - 33 The newly discovered facts exception “is not so narrow as to limit itself to only claims involving ‘after-discovered evidence.’”100 A petitioner may satisfy the timeliness exception even if his or her underlying, substantive claim turns out to be meritless.

2025Moreover, while impeachment evidence which goes to the credibility of a primary witness against the accused is critical evidence which will be material to the case, “mere conjecture … is not sufficient to establish a Brady violation.” Id. at 1131 .

2025Moreover, while impeachment evidence which goes to the credibility of a primary witness against the accused is critical evidence which will be material to the case, “mere conjecture … is not sufficient to establish a Brady violation.” Id. at 1131 .

2013“There is no Brady violation when the appellant knew or, with reasonable diligence, could have uncovered the evidence in question....” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17 , 18 A.3d 244, 276 (2011); see Commonwealth v. Collins, 585 Pa. 45 , 888 A.2d 564, 578 (2005) (no due process violation where parties had equal access to information or if defendant could have uncovered such information with reasonable diligence).

2013“There is no Brady violation when the appellant knew or, with reasonable diligence, could have uncovered the evidence in question....” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17 , 18 A.3d 244, 276 (2011); see Commonwealth v. Collins, 585 Pa. 45 , 888 A.2d 564, 578 (2005) (no due process violation where parties had equal access to information or if defendant could have uncovered such information with reasonable diligence).