Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 New York opinions name it 6 courts 2014–2026 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Garrettgreen2 sentences2026"To make out a successful Brady claim, 'a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material' " ( Garrett , 23 NY3d at 885, quoting People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009]). *** At issue now is the second Brady factor, namely, whether the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution. 2026"To make out a successful Brady claim, 'a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material' " ( Garrett , 23 NY3d at 885 , quoting People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009]). *** At issue now is the second Brady factor, namely, whether the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution. | 10 | 11 |
People v. Fuentesgreen2 sentences2026"To make out a successful Brady claim, 'a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material' " ( Garrett , 23 NY3d at 885, quoting People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009]). *** At issue now is the second Brady factor, namely, whether the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution. 2026"To make out a successful Brady claim, 'a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material' " ( Garrett , 23 NY3d at 885 , quoting People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009]). *** At issue now is the second Brady factor, namely, whether the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution. | 5 | 7 |
People v. LaVallegreen2 sentences2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282 ; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]). 2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Franklinegreen2 sentences2016In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for [an item of discovery], the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility1 that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” (id.; see People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878, 885 [2014], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1215 [2015]). 2016In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for [an item of discovery], the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility1 that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” (id.; see People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878, 885 [2014], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1215 [2015]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Vilardigreen2 sentences2023In this state, when "the defendant [has] made a specific request for the evidence in question, we must examine the trial record, evaluate the withheld evidence in the context of the entire record, and determine in light of that examination whether there is a reasonable possibility that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed" ( People v McGhee , 36 NY3d at 1065 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see People v Vilardi , 76 NY2d at 77-78 ). 2021Where, as here, the defendant made a specific request for the evidence in question, “[w]e must examine the trial record, evaluat[e] the withheld evidence in the context of the entire record, and determine in light of that examination whether there is a reasonable possibility that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed” (People v Giuca, 33 NY3d 462 , 476 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Turner v United States, 582 US ___ , ___, 137 S Ct 1885, 1893 [2017]; People v Ulett, 33 NY3d 512 , 520 [2019]; People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77 [1990] | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282 ; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]). 2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Strickler v. Greenegreen2 sentences2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282 ; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]). 2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Colongreen1 sentence2023Evidence that is impeaching in nature includes "benefits conferred on a witness by a prosecutor" because those benefits "provide a basis for the jury to question the veracity of a witness on the theory that the witness may be biased in favor of the People" ( People v Colon , 13 NY3d 343, 350 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2021Where, as here, the defendant made a specific request for the evidence in question, “[w]e must examine the trial record, evaluat[e] the withheld evidence in the context of the entire record, and determine in light of that examination whether there is a reasonable possibility that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed” (People v Giuca, 33 NY3d 462 , 476 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Turner v United States, 582 US ___ , ___, 137 S Ct 1885, 1893 [2017]; People v Ulett, 33 NY3d 512 , 520 [2019]; People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77 [1990] | 1 | 1 |
People v. Huntergreen1 sentence2017Where, as here, the defense did not specifically request the information, the test of materiality is whether there is a reasonable probability that had it been disclosed to the defense, the result would have been different — i.e., a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial (see id. at 891 ; People v Hunter, 11 NY3d 1, 6 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kinney
green
1 sentence2022Here, the defendant failed to establish that the purported Brady material was favorable to him ( see People v Yedinak , 157 AD3d 1052 , 1056), that it was suppressed by the People ( see People v Brown , 183 AD3d 910, 911 ; People v Pleasant , 146 AD3d 985, 986 ), or that it would have materially affected his decision to plead guilty rather than go to trial ( see People v Kinney , 107 AD3d 563, 564 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Oldham
green
1 sentence2022Here, the defendant failed to establish that the purported Brady material was favorable to him ( see People v Yedinak , 157 AD3d 1052 , 1056), that it was suppressed by the People ( see People v Brown , 183 AD3d 910, 911 ; People v Pleasant , 146 AD3d 985, 986 ), or that it would have materially affected his decision to plead guilty rather than go to trial ( see People v Kinney , 107 AD3d 563, 564 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
The People v. Kevin Fisher
green
1 sentence2022"To make out a successful Brady claim, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v McGhee , 36 NY3d 1063 , 1064-1065 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[I]n cases where a defendant pleads guilty and the People have suppressed exculpatory evidence, the defendant must establish that the evidence would have materially affected the decision [*2]to plead rather than go to trial" | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence2022Here, the defendant failed to establish that the purported Brady material was favorable to him ( see People v Yedinak , 157 AD3d 1052 , 1056), that it was suppressed by the People ( see People v Brown , 183 AD3d 910, 911 ; People v Pleasant , 146 AD3d 985, 986 ), or that it would have materially affected his decision to plead guilty rather than go to trial ( see People v Kinney , 107 AD3d 563, 564 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Baba-Ali v. State
green
2 sentences2019Thus, as the Court of Appeals explicitly held in Baba-Ali , a successful Brady claim cannot authorize a recovery under Court of Claims Act § 8-b ( see Baba-Ali , 19 NY3d at 636 ). 2019That, however, is irrelevant for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 8-b, which allows recovery only where the criminal court actually vacated the judgment on an enumerated ground, and not where the criminal court might have vacated the judgment on an enumerated ground, but did not do so (see Baba-Ali, 19 NY3d at 636-637 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.