Brady violation in Pennsylvania

2026A Brady claim may meet the governmental interference exception if the petitioner proves that the failure to raise the claim was the result of governmental interference and “the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) Both exceptions required Benson to plead and prove due diligence in learning the information.

2026A Brady claim may meet the governmental interference exception if the petitioner proves that the failure to raise the claim was the result of governmental interference and “the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) Both exceptions required Benson to plead and prove due diligence in learning the information.

2026Where a petitioner’s allegation of governmental interference is based on an alleged Brady violation, “the proper questions with respect to timeliness in this case are whether the government interfered with Appellant’s access to the [allegedly withheld evidence], and whether Appellant was duly diligent in seeking [that evidence].” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 581 , 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008).

2026Where a petitioner’s allegation of governmental interference is based on an alleged Brady violation, “the proper questions with respect to timeliness in this case are whether the government interfered with Appellant’s access to the [allegedly withheld evidence], and whether Appellant was duly diligent in seeking [that evidence].” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 581 , 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008).

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 , 29 n.13 (Pa. 2019) (addressing a post-conviction claim alleging a “due process violation under Brady pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §9543(a)(2)(i)”); Smith, 17 A.3d at 887-88 (“In 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.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Natividad, 200 A.3d 11 , 29 n.13 (Pa. 2019) (addressing a post-conviction claim alleging a “due process violation under Brady pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §9543(a)(2)(i)”); Smith, 17 A.3d at 887-88 (“In 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.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

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 evidence 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)).

2025See Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 609 (Pa. 2013) (concluding PCRA petitioner waived his Brady claim by failing to raise it at trial or on direct appeal).

2026Further, as our Supreme Court has recognized, “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.” Commonwealth v. Morris, 822 A.2d 684, 696 (Pa. 2003) (quotation omitted).

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

2026In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that “suppression by the prosecution of favorable evidence to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment[.]” 373 U.S. at 87 . “[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. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538, 547 (Pa. Super. 201

2026In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that “suppression by the prosecution of favorable evidence to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment[.]” 373 U.S. at 87 . “[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. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538, 547 (Pa. Super. 201

2026In particular, Appellant assailed Attorney Lingle’s failure to properly raise claims that trial counsel had been ineffective by: (1) inadequately impeaching co-conspirator Barzona; (2) not raising a claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), concerning witness Scott Conrad; (3) failing to raise a Brady challenge regarding Barzona; and (4) not objecting to the Commonwealth’s improper bolstering of Barzona’s credibility.

2026In particular, Appellant assailed Attorney Lingle’s failure to properly raise claims that trial counsel had been ineffective by: (1) inadequately impeaching co-conspirator Barzona; (2) not raising a claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), concerning witness Scott Conrad; (3) failing to raise a Brady challenge regarding Barzona; and (4) not objecting to the Commonwealth’s improper bolstering of Barzona’s credibility.

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).

2026A Brady claim “presents a question of law, for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Bagnall, 235 A.3d 1075 , 1084 (Pa. 2020).

2026A Brady claim “presents a question of law, for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Bagnall, 235 A.3d 1075 , 1084 (Pa. 2020).

2021Additionally, “a - 15 - 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

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

2020See also Commonwealth v Tedford, 960 A.2d 1, 30-31 (Pa. 2008) (stating that to prevail on a Brady claim, an appellant must affirmatively demonstrate exculpability and an appellant’s assertion regarding the “potential exculpatory value” of certain evidence does not accomplish that). -7- This does not mean, of course, that Appellant could not have conducted her own forensic testing of the gun.

2026The Supreme Court of the United States held in Brady that “the 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.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 133 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 ). -5- To the extent that Appellant suggests that his mere allegation of a Brady violation satisfies the PCRA governmental interference timeliness exception, he is not entitled to relief.

2026The Supreme Court of the United States held in Brady that “the 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.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 133 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 ). -5- To the extent that Appellant suggests that his mere allegation of a Brady violation satisfies the PCRA governmental interference timeliness exception, he is not entitled to relief.

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.

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)).

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)).

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- 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).

2026Our Supreme Court has recognized that: [a]lthough a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception, the petitioner must plead and prove the failure to previously raise the claim was the result of interference by government officials, and the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence. [Commonwealth v.] Breakiron, [ 781 A.2d 94 ,] 98 [(Pa. 2001)].

2026Our Supreme Court has recognized that: [a]lthough a Brady violation may fall within the governmental interference exception, the petitioner must plead and prove the failure to previously raise the claim was the result of interference by government officials, and the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence. [Commonwealth v.] Breakiron, [ 781 A.2d 94 ,] 98 [(Pa. 2001)].

2026See Commonwealth v. Crumbley, 270 A.3d 1171, 1181 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating “ineffective assistance of counsel is a recognized basis for relief under the PCRA” (some formatting altered)); Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 , 264 n.16 (Pa. 2013) (explaining that a Brady claim is cognizable under the PCRA); Commonwealth v. Ballance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2019) (explaining that legality of sentence claims are reviewable under the PCRA).

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).

2020In order to prove a Brady violation, “a defendant is required to demonstrate: (1) 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) (citations omitted).

2026Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015). -5- (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- (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- 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- 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).

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).

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)).

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

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)].

2026In [Commonwealth v.] Bennett, [ 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-72 (Pa. 2007)], we clarified that § 9[545](b)(1)(ii)'s exception does not contain the same requirements as a Brady claim, noting “we made clear the exception set forth in subsection (b)(1)(ii) does not require any merits analysis of the underlying claim.

2026In [Commonwealth v.] Bennett, [ 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-72 (Pa. 2007)], we clarified that § 9[545](b)(1)(ii)'s exception does not contain the same requirements as a Brady claim, noting “we made clear the exception set forth in subsection (b)(1)(ii) does not require any merits analysis of the underlying claim.

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).