Brady2 violation in Pennsylvania

2020See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008) (consideration of Brady2 claim separate from consideration of its timeliness).

2019See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008) (consideration of Brady2 claim separate from consideration of its timeliness).

2025Appellant requested a new trial based on the following, pertinent, grounds: 1) Detective James Pitts (Detective Pitts) used excessive and coercive force against Appellant in the instant case, and other defendants in unrelated cases; 2) the Commonwealth committed a Brady2 violation by failing to disclose to the defense Detective Pitts’ history of misconduct; and 3) Appellant’s privately-retained appellate counsel, Todd Mosser, Esquire ____________________________________________ 1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a). 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). -3- J-S05020-25

2020On appeal, Appellant seeks relief on his claims that: (1) the Commonwealth committed a Brady2 violation by not disclosing one victim’s criminal history; and (2) his requirement to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification ____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

2024See -5- J-S35043-24 Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 596 Pa. 219 , 941 A.2d 1263 (2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 916 , 129 S.Ct. 271 , 172 L.Ed.2d 201 (2008) (explaining that although Brady2 violation may fall within governmental interference exception, petitioner must plead and prove that failure to previously raise claim was result of interference by government officials, and information could not have been obtained earlier with exercise of due diligence).

2024See -5- J-S35043-24 Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 596 Pa. 219 , 941 A.2d 1263 (2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 916 , 129 S.Ct. 271 , 172 L.Ed.2d 201 (2008) (explaining that although Brady2 violation may fall within governmental interference exception, petitioner must plead and prove that failure to previously raise claim was result of interference by government officials, and information could not have been obtained earlier with exercise of due diligence).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”) Next, Grace argues the court erred in concluding the prosecutor had not committed a Brady2 violation.

2018See also Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”) Next, Grace argues the court erred in concluding the prosecutor had not committed a Brady2 violation.

2015“To establish a Brady violation, a defendant 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. Willis, 46 A.3d 648, 667 (Pa. 2012). ____________________________________________ 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

2015“To establish a Brady violation, a defendant 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. Willis, 46 A.3d 648, 667 (Pa. 2012). ____________________________________________ 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).