Brady violation in Alabama

2025We have held: " 'To [establish] a Brady violation, a defendant must show that " '(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence 118 CR-21-0109 was material to the issues at trial.' " Johnson v. State, 612 So. 2d 1288, 1293 (Ala. Cr.

2025We have held: " 'To [establish] a Brady violation, a defendant must show that " '(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence 118 CR-21-0109 was material to the issues at trial.' " Johnson v. State, 612 So. 2d 1288, 1293 (Ala. Cr.

2016“To [establish] a Brady violation, a defendant must show that ‘“(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was- favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material to the issues at trial.” ’ Johnson v. State, 612 So.2d 1288, 1293 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), quoting Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898, 899 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, Stano v. Singletary, 516 U.S. 1122 , 116 S.Ct. 932 , 133 L.Ed.2d 859 (1996).

2016“To [establish] a Brady violation, a defendant must show that ‘“(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was- favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material to the issues at trial.” ’ Johnson v. State, 612 So.2d 1288, 1293 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), quoting Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898, 899 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, Stano v. Singletary, 516 U.S. 1122 , 116 S.Ct. 932 , 133 L.Ed.2d 859 (1996).

2015As this Court’s unpublished memorandum affirming this case on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court stated: ‘“To establish a Brady violation, [the defendant] must demonstrate (1) that the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) that that evidences was favorable to him or exculpatory; and (3) that the evidence -was material.’ Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106, 1110 (Ala.1985). “‘Furthermore, the rule of Brady applies only in situations which involve ‘discovery after trial of information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.’ United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. [97], at 10

2015As this Court’s unpublished memorandum affirming this case on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court stated: ‘“To establish a Brady violation, [the defendant] must demonstrate (1) that the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) that that evidences was favorable to him or exculpatory; and (3) that the evidence -was material.’ Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106, 1110 (Ala.1985). “‘Furthermore, the rule of Brady applies only in situations which involve ‘discovery after trial of information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.’ United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. [97], at 10

1989The Court ruled that due process required a new trial and that, "[w]hen the 'reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt of innocence,' nondisclosure of the evidence affecting credibility falls within [the Brady rule requiring a new trial regardless of the prosecution's good or bad faith]." Id. at 154 , 92 S.Ct. at 766 , quoting Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 , 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 1177 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).

1989The Court ruled that due process required a new trial and that, "[w]hen the 'reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt of innocence,' nondisclosure of the evidence affecting credibility falls within [the Brady rule requiring a new trial regardless of the prosecution's good or bad faith]." Id. at 154 , 92 S.Ct. at 766 , quoting Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 , 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 1177 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).

2016See Smith v. State, 675 So.2d 100 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). ‘ “The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the eyidence been-disclosed to the defense, the result of. the proceeding-would have been different.

2016See Smith v. State, 675 So.2d 100 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). ‘ “The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the eyidence been-disclosed to the defense, the result of. the proceeding-would have been different.

2011This court stated: “ ‘To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must show that “ ‘(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material to the issues at trial.’ ” ’ Freeman v. State, 722 So. 2d 806, 810 (Ala.Cr.App.1998) (quoting Johnson v. State, 612 So. 2d 1288, 1293 (Ala.Cr.App.1992)).

2011This court stated: “ ‘To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must show that “ ‘(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material to the issues at trial.’ ” ’ Freeman v. State, 722 So. 2d 806, 810 (Ala.Cr.App.1998) (quoting Johnson v. State, 612 So. 2d 1288, 1293 (Ala.Cr.App.1992)).

2006Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97 .” Hendrix v. State, 589 So.2d 769, 770 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). “ ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson [v. State], 612 So.2d [1288] at 1294 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ]; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exc

2005Thus, the appellant could have obtained all of the evidence in question by exercising due diligence. ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson, 612 So.2d at 1294 ; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence.” United States v. LeRoy, 687

2006Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97 .” Hendrix v. State, 589 So.2d 769, 770 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). “ ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson [v. State], 612 So.2d [1288] at 1294 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ]; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exc

2005Thus, the appellant could have obtained all of the evidence in question by exercising due diligence. ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson, 612 So.2d at 1294 ; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence.” United States v. LeRoy, 687

2006Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97 .” Hendrix v. State, 589 So.2d 769, 770 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). “ ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson [v. State], 612 So.2d [1288] at 1294 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ]; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exc

2005Thus, the appellant could have obtained all of the evidence in question by exercising due diligence. ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson, 612 So.2d at 1294 ; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence.” United States v. LeRoy, 687

2015Stano v. Dugger , 901 F.2d 898 , 899 (11th Cir.1990) ; Delap v. Dugger , 890 F.2d 285 (11th Cir.1989) ; United States v. Blasco , 702 F.2d 1315 , 1327 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 914 , 104 S.Ct. 275 , 276, 78 L.Ed.2d 256 (1983) ; Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 , 1110 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).

2015Stano v. Dugger , 901 F.2d 898 , 899 (11th Cir.1990) ; Delap v. Dugger , 890 F.2d 285 (11th Cir.1989) ; United States v. Blasco , 702 F.2d 1315 , 1327 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 914 , 104 S.Ct. 275 , 276, 78 L.Ed.2d 256 (1983) ; Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 , 1110 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).

2006Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97 .” Hendrix v. State, 589 So.2d 769, 770 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). “ ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson [v. State], 612 So.2d [1288] at 1294 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ]; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exc

2005Thus, the appellant could have obtained all of the evidence in question by exercising due diligence. ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson, 612 So.2d at 1294 ; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence.” United States v. LeRoy, 687

2006Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97 .” Hendrix v. State, 589 So.2d 769, 770 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). “ ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson [v. State], 612 So.2d [1288] at 1294 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ]; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exc

2005Thus, the appellant could have obtained all of the evidence in question by exercising due diligence. ‘There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.’ Johnson, 612 So.2d at 1294 ; see also Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1995). ‘ “Evidence is not ‘suppressed’ if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence.” United States v. LeRoy, 687

2024"Impeachment evidence ... as well as 21 CR-2024-0091 exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985).

2024"Impeachment evidence ... as well as 21 CR-2024-0091 exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985).

2025"The final 'prejudice' component of a Brady violation is the requirement that the suppressed evidence be 'material either to guilt or to punishment.' 373 U.S. at 87 .

2025"The final 'prejudice' component of a Brady violation is the requirement that the suppressed evidence be 'material either to guilt or to punishment.' 373 U.S. at 87 .

2000This Court stated in Kinder v. State , 515 So.2d 55 , 63-64 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986): "`In order to establish a Brady violation, appellant must prove: "(1) The prosecution's suppression of evidence; (2) The favorable character of the suppressed evidence for the defense; and (3) The materiality of the suppressed evidence."' Knight v. State , 478 So.2d 332 , 335 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985).

2000This Court stated in Kinder v. State , 515 So.2d 55 , 63-64 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986): "`In order to establish a Brady violation, appellant must prove: "(1) The prosecution's suppression of evidence; (2) The favorable character of the suppressed evidence for the defense; and (3) The materiality of the suppressed evidence."' Knight v. State , 478 So.2d 332 , 335 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985).

1990In Ex parte Brown , 548 So.2d 993 , 995 (Ala. 1989), the Alabama Supreme *Page 656 Court held that "where defendant has timely requested the production of exculpatory evidence that is material to his defense and the trial judge has ordered that such evidence be produced, Brady , supra, and Rule 18.1, A.R.Crim.P., require that the evidence be produced at a reasonable time before trial." "In order to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must establish the following elements: 1. that the prosecution suppressed the evidence; 2. that the evidence was of a character favorable to the defense; a

1990In Ex parte Brown , 548 So.2d 993 , 995 (Ala. 1989), the Alabama Supreme *Page 656 Court held that "where defendant has timely requested the production of exculpatory evidence that is material to his defense and the trial judge has ordered that such evidence be produced, Brady , supra, and Rule 18.1, A.R.Crim.P., require that the evidence be produced at a reasonable time before trial." "In order to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must establish the following elements: 1. that the prosecution suppressed the evidence; 2. that the evidence was of a character favorable to the defense; a

2000In Coral v. State , 628 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994), this Court stated: "In Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1197 , the Supreme Court held that `the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to *Page 919 guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.' To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the prosecution suppress

2000In Coral v. State , 628 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994), this Court stated: "In Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1197 , the Supreme Court held that `the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to *Page 919 guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.' To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the prosecution suppress

1993In Ex parte Cammon , 578 So.2d 1089 , 1091 (Ala. 1991), the Alabama Supreme Court stated that to establish a Brady violation the defendant must establish: (1) that the prosecution suppressed the evidence; (2) that the evidence was favorable to his defense; and (3) that the evidence was material.

1993In Ex parte Cammon , 578 So.2d 1089 , 1091 (Ala. 1991), the Alabama Supreme Court stated that to establish a Brady violation the defendant must establish: (1) that the prosecution suppressed the evidence; (2) that the evidence was favorable to his defense; and (3) that the evidence was material.