Brady violation in Nebraska

2017Clifton asserts that, as impeachment evidence, the statement was information favor- able to the accused as defined by Brady v. Maryland 64 and United States v. Bagley.65 [12] In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court laid down the principle that irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecution, its suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process if the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment.66 The purpose of the Brady rule is not to displace the adversary system as the primary means by which truth is uncovered, but to ensure the disclosure of evidenc

2017Clifton asserts that, as impeachment evidence, the statement was information favor- able to the accused as defined by Brady v. Maryland 64 and United States v. Bagley.65 [12] In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court laid down the principle that irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecution, its suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process if the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment.66 The purpose of the Brady rule is not to displace the adversary system as the primary means by which truth is uncovered, but to ensure the disclosure of evidenc

2025As refined by subsequent case law, there are three components to a Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued such that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict; i.e., the suppressed evidence must be “‘material either to guilt or to punishment.’’’ [See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S. Ct. 1936 , 14

2025As refined by subsequent case law, there are three components to a Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued such that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict; i.e., the suppressed evidence must be “‘material either to guilt or to punishment.’’’ [See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S. Ct. 1936 , 14

2025See, e.g., U.S. v. Burke, 571 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Walsh, 75 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996).

2025See, e.g., U.S. v. Burke, 571 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Walsh, 75 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996).

2016We have stated that there are three components of a true Brady violation: “‘“The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have - 373 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 294 Neb. 361 ensued.”’” State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703 , 719, 824 N.W.2d 668 , 685 (2012).

2016We have stated that there are three components of a true Brady violation: “‘“The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have - 373 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 294 Neb. 361 ensued.”’” State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703 , 719, 824 N.W.2d 668 , 685 (2012).

2024State v. Harris, 296 Neb. 317 , 893 N.W.2d 440 (2017).

2024State v. Harris, 296 Neb. 317 , 893 N.W.2d 440 (2017).

2022State v. Marks, 286 Neb. 166 , 835 N.W.2d 656 (2013).

2022State v. Marks, 286 Neb. 166 , 835 N.W.2d 656 (2013).

2022State v. Stelly, 308 Neb. 636 , 955 N.W.2d 729 (2021).

2022State v. Stelly, 308 Neb. 636 , 955 N.W.2d 729 (2021).

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021An evidentiary hearing is not required when a motion for postconviction relief alleges only conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts. 22 Conclusions of fact that are insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing are often broad characterizations without specificity, such as an allegation of “false” testimony, 23 but we have also found a more specific allegation to be a mere conclusion of fact when it appears based on speculation due to the lack of adequate supporting factual allegations. 24 Thus, for instance, in State v. Allen, 25 we concluded that the allegation that law enforcem

2021An evidentiary hearing is not required when a motion for postconviction relief alleges only conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts. 22 Conclusions of fact that are insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing are often broad characterizations without specificity, such as an allegation of “false” testimony, 23 but we have also found a more specific allegation to be a mere conclusion of fact when it appears based on speculation due to the lack of adequate supporting factual allegations. 24 Thus, for instance, in State v. Allen, 25 we concluded that the allegation that law enforcem

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021There are three components of a true Brady violation: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 14 State v. Sellers, supra note 3. 15 See, State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 304 Neb. 147 , 933 N.W.2d 825 (2019); State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017); State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 , 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015); State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 138 , 629 N.W.2d 503 (2001). - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STELLY it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willf

2021An evidentiary hearing is not required when a motion for postconviction relief alleges only conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts. 22 Conclusions of fact that are insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing are often broad characterizations without specificity, such as an allegation of “false” testimony, 23 but we have also found a more specific allegation to be a mere conclusion of fact when it appears based on speculation due to the lack of adequate supporting factual allegations. 24 Thus, for instance, in State v. Allen, 25 we concluded that the allegation that law enforcem

2021An evidentiary hearing is not required when a motion for postconviction relief alleges only conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts. 22 Conclusions of fact that are insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing are often broad characterizations without specificity, such as an allegation of “false” testimony, 23 but we have also found a more specific allegation to be a mere conclusion of fact when it appears based on speculation due to the lack of adequate supporting factual allegations. 24 Thus, for instance, in State v. Allen, 25 we concluded that the allegation that law enforcem

2019Ewinger acknowledges that “[u]ltimately, the porn was not entered into evidence, but [the victim’s mother] was allowed to describe it.” Id. at 42 .

2019Ewinger acknowledges that “[u]ltimately, the porn was not entered into evidence, but [the victim’s mother] was allowed to describe it.” Id. at 42 .

2017At issue is Scott’s testimony that the day after the shooting, Clifton told 61 See, Taylor v. Riddle, 563 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977); U.S. v. Sanchez, 866 F. Supp. 1542 (D.

2017At issue is Scott’s testimony that the day after the shooting, Clifton told 61 See, Taylor v. Riddle, 563 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977); U.S. v. Sanchez, 866 F. Supp. 1542 (D.

2017At issue is Scott’s testimony that the day after the shooting, Clifton told 61 See, Taylor v. Riddle, 563 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977); U.S. v. Sanchez, 866 F. Supp. 1542 (D.

2017At issue is Scott’s testimony that the day after the shooting, Clifton told 61 See, Taylor v. Riddle, 563 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977); U.S. v. Sanchez, 866 F. Supp. 1542 (D.

2016We have stated that there are three components of a true Brady violation: “‘“The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have - 373 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 294 Neb. 361 ensued.”’” State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703 , 719, 824 N.W.2d 668 , 685 (2012).

2016We have stated that there are three components of a true Brady violation: “‘“The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have - 373 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 294 Neb. 361 ensued.”’” State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703 , 719, 824 N.W.2d 668 , 685 (2012).

2016Under Brady, the nondisclosure by the prosecution of material evidence favorable to the defendant, requested by the defendant, violates due process, irrespective of the good faith 9 State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 , 878 N.W.2d 363 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Brady v. Maryland, supra note 1 . 13 Brief for appellant at 15 (quoting State v. Kula, 252 Neb. 471 , 562 N.W.2d 717 (1997)). - 566 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 294 Neb. 551 or bad faith of the prosecution.14 Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady

2016Under Brady, the nondisclosure by the prosecution of material evidence favorable to the defendant, requested by the defendant, violates due process, irrespective of the good faith 9 State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 , 878 N.W.2d 363 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Brady v. Maryland, supra note 1 . 13 Brief for appellant at 15 (quoting State v. Kula, 252 Neb. 471 , 562 N.W.2d 717 (1997)). - 566 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 294 Neb. 551 or bad faith of the prosecution.14 Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady

2016Jenkins assigns this as error. (b) Standard of Review [19] In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed.58 58 State v. Ballew, 291 Neb. 577 , 867 N.W.2d 571 (2015). - 710 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JENKINS Cite as 294 Neb. 684 (c) Analysis [20] In Brady, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pros- ecution has a duty to disclose all favorable evidence to a criminal defendant prior to trial.59 In United Stat

2016Jenkins assigns this as error. (b) Standard of Review [19] In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed.58 58 State v. Ballew, 291 Neb. 577 , 867 N.W.2d 571 (2015). - 710 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JENKINS Cite as 294 Neb. 684 (c) Analysis [20] In Brady, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pros- ecution has a duty to disclose all favorable evidence to a criminal defendant prior to trial.59 In United Stat

2016Under Brady, the nondisclosure by the prosecution of material evidence favorable to the defendant, requested by the defendant, violates due process, irrespective of the good faith 9 State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 , 878 N.W.2d 363 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Brady v. Maryland, supra note 1 . 13 Brief for appellant at 15 (quoting State v. Kula, 252 Neb. 471 , 562 N.W.2d 717 (1997)). - 566 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 294 Neb. 551 or bad faith of the prosecution.14 Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady

2016Under Brady, the nondisclosure by the prosecution of material evidence favorable to the defendant, requested by the defendant, violates due process, irrespective of the good faith 9 State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 , 878 N.W.2d 363 (2016). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Brady v. Maryland, supra note 1 . 13 Brief for appellant at 15 (quoting State v. Kula, 252 Neb. 471 , 562 N.W.2d 717 (1997)). - 566 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 294 Neb. 551 or bad faith of the prosecution.14 Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady

2016Jenkins assigns this as error. (b) Standard of Review [19] In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed.58 58 State v. Ballew, 291 Neb. 577 , 867 N.W.2d 571 (2015). - 710 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JENKINS Cite as 294 Neb. 684 (c) Analysis [20] In Brady, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pros- ecution has a duty to disclose all favorable evidence to a criminal defendant prior to trial.59 In United Stat

2016Jenkins assigns this as error. (b) Standard of Review [19] In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed.58 58 State v. Ballew, 291 Neb. 577 , 867 N.W.2d 571 (2015). - 710 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JENKINS Cite as 294 Neb. 684 (c) Analysis [20] In Brady, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pros- ecution has a duty to disclose all favorable evidence to a criminal defendant prior to trial.59 In United Stat

2014Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. PATTON 915 Cite as 287 Neb. 899 to a criminal defendant prior to trial.26 The Court clarified in United States v. Bagley that impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule.27 Patton contends that the State failed to disclose tacit agreements with Emily and Northrop which he could have utilized to impeach their credibility.

2014Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. PATTON 915 Cite as 287 Neb. 899 to a criminal defendant prior to trial.26 The Court clarified in United States v. Bagley that impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule.27 Patton contends that the State failed to disclose tacit agreements with Emily and Northrop which he could have utilized to impeach their credibility.

2001As support for his assertion, Dunster relies on U.S. v. Spagnoulo, 960 F.2d 990 (11th Cir. 1992).

2001As support for his assertion, Dunster relies on U.S. v. Spagnoulo, 960 F.2d 990 (11th Cir. 1992).