Brady violation in New Hampshire

2022The government’s failure to disclose favorable, material information to the defense is referred to as a “Brady violation.” See State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290-91 (2015); see Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 .

2022The government’s failure to disclose favorable, material information to the defense is referred to as a “Brady violation.” See State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290-91 (2015); see Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.

2011The undisclosed evidence could have led to a line of impeachment questioning that may have affected the verdict.”); Dewitt, 143 N.H. at 34 (“The usefulness of impeachment evidence is particularly apparent in this case where only the complaining witness and the defendant have actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault.”); State v. Dedrick, 135 N.H. 502, 508 (1992) (“When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within the Brady rule.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

2011The undisclosed evidence could have led to a line of impeachment questioning that may have affected the verdict.”); Dewitt, 143 N.H. at 34 (“The usefulness of impeachment evidence is particularly apparent in this case where only the complaining witness and the defendant have actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault.”); State v. Dedrick, 135 N.H. 502, 508 (1992) (“When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within the Brady rule.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

1992In State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561 , 391 A.2d 884 (1978), we set forth the factors to be considered when a Brady violation is alleged: ‘“(a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and, (c) the materiality of the evidence.’” Id. at 563, 391 A.2d at 885 -86 (quoting Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95 (1972)).

1992In State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561 , 391 A.2d 884 (1978), we set forth the factors to be considered when a Brady violation is alleged: ‘“(a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and, (c) the materiality of the evidence.’” Id. at 563, 391 A.2d at 885 -86 (quoting Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95 (1972)).

2022Cir. 2015) (deciding that “if the lingering prejudice of a Brady violation has removed all possibility that the defendant could receive a new trial that is fair, the indictment must be dismissed”); United States v. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019, 1031 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Only where the government withheld Brady material through flagrant misconduct, causing substantial prejudice to the accused,” should the court “exercise . . . its supervisory powers to dismiss the case with prejudice.” (quotations omitted)).

2022Cir. 2015) (deciding that “if the lingering prejudice of a Brady violation has removed all possibility that the defendant could receive a new trial that is fair, the indictment must be dismissed”); United States v. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019, 1031 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Only where the government withheld Brady material through flagrant misconduct, causing substantial prejudice to the accused,” should the court “exercise . . . its supervisory powers to dismiss the case with prejudice.” (quotations omitted)).

2022Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183, 188 (1st Cir. 2005). “[E]vidence is ‘material’ within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469-70 (2009).

2022Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183, 188 (1st Cir. 2005). “[E]vidence is ‘material’ within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469-70 (2009).

2022When a first trial has ended in a conviction, “the remedy for a Brady violation typically is a new trial.” Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 802 (5th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Davis, 578 F.2d 277, 280 (10th Cir. 1978) (explaining that “a violation of due process under Brady does not entitle a defendant to an acquittal, but only to a new trial in which the convicted defendant has access to the wrongfully withheld evidence”).

2022When a first trial has ended in a conviction, “the remedy for a Brady violation typically is a new trial.” Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 802 (5th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Davis, 578 F.2d 277, 280 (10th Cir. 1978) (explaining that “a violation of due process under Brady does not entitle a defendant to an acquittal, but only to a new trial in which the convicted defendant has access to the wrongfully withheld evidence”).

2022Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183, 188 (1st Cir. 2005). “[E]vidence is ‘material’ within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469-70 (2009).

2022Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183, 188 (1st Cir. 2005). “[E]vidence is ‘material’ within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469-70 (2009).

2022See, e.g., Government of Virgin Islands v. Fahie, 419 F.3d 249, 255 (3d Cir. 2005) (“While retrial is normally the most severe sanction available for a Brady violation, where a defendant can 11 show both willful misconduct by the government, and prejudice, dismissal may be proper.”); United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122, 1139 (D.C.

2022See, e.g., Government of Virgin Islands v. Fahie, 419 F.3d 249, 255 (3d Cir. 2005) (“While retrial is normally the most severe sanction available for a Brady violation, where a defendant can 11 show both willful misconduct by the government, and prejudice, dismissal may be proper.”); United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122, 1139 (D.C.

2022When a first trial has ended in a conviction, “the remedy for a Brady violation typically is a new trial.” Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 802 (5th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Davis, 578 F.2d 277, 280 (10th Cir. 1978) (explaining that “a violation of due process under Brady does not entitle a defendant to an acquittal, but only to a new trial in which the convicted defendant has access to the wrongfully withheld evidence”).

2022When a first trial has ended in a conviction, “the remedy for a Brady violation typically is a new trial.” Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 802 (5th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Davis, 578 F.2d 277, 280 (10th Cir. 1978) (explaining that “a violation of due process under Brady does not entitle a defendant to an acquittal, but only to a new trial in which the convicted defendant has access to the wrongfully withheld evidence”).

2022See, e.g., Government of Virgin Islands v. Fahie, 419 F.3d 249, 255 (3d Cir. 2005) (“While retrial is normally the most severe sanction available for a Brady violation, where a defendant can 11 show both willful misconduct by the government, and prejudice, dismissal may be proper.”); United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122, 1139 (D.C.

2022See, e.g., Government of Virgin Islands v. Fahie, 419 F.3d 249, 255 (3d Cir. 2005) (“While retrial is normally the most severe sanction available for a Brady violation, where a defendant can 11 show both willful misconduct by the government, and prejudice, dismissal may be proper.”); United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122, 1139 (D.C.

2022The government’s failure to disclose favorable, material information to the defense is referred to as a “Brady violation.” See State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290-91 (2015); see Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 .

2022The government’s failure to disclose favorable, material information to the defense is referred to as a “Brady violation.” See State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290-91 (2015); see Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.

2015As we have stated, “relief for a Brady violation requires proof that the violation somehow caused [the defendant] prejudice.” State v. Colbath, 130 N.H. 316, 320-21 (1988).

2015As we have stated, “relief for a Brady violation requires proof that the violation somehow caused [the defendant] prejudice.” State v. Colbath, 130 N.H. 316, 320-21 (1988).

2015“Actual prejudice exists if the defense has been impeded to a significant degree by the nondisclosure.” State v. Stickney, 148 N.H. 232, 236 (2002).

2015“Actual prejudice exists if the defense has been impeded to a significant degree by the nondisclosure.” State v. Stickney, 148 N.H. 232, 236 (2002).

2011The undisclosed evidence could have led to a line of impeachment questioning that may have affected the verdict.”); Dewitt, 143 N.H. at 34 (“The usefulness of impeachment evidence is particularly apparent in this case where only the complaining witness and the defendant have actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault.”); State v. Dedrick, 135 N.H. 502, 508 (1992) (“When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within the Brady rule.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

2011The undisclosed evidence could have led to a line of impeachment questioning that may have affected the verdict.”); Dewitt, 143 N.H. at 34 (“The usefulness of impeachment evidence is particularly apparent in this case where only the complaining witness and the defendant have actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault.”); State v. Dedrick, 135 N.H. 502, 508 (1992) (“When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within the Brady rule.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

1992In State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561 , 391 A.2d 884 (1978), we set forth the factors to be considered when a Brady violation is alleged: ‘“(a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and, (c) the materiality of the evidence.’” Id. at 563, 391 A.2d at 885 -86 (quoting Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95 (1972)).

1992In State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561 , 391 A.2d 884 (1978), we set forth the factors to be considered when a Brady violation is alleged: ‘“(a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and, (c) the materiality of the evidence.’” Id. at 563, 391 A.2d at 885 -86 (quoting Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95 (1972)).

1988Brady v. Maryland, supra at 88 ; State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561, 563 , 391 A.2d 884, 885 (1978); State v. Dukette, 113 N.H. 472, 477 , 309 A.2d 886, 889 (1973).

1988Brady v. Maryland, supra at 88 ; State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561, 563 , 391 A.2d 884, 885 (1978); State v. Dukette, 113 N.H. 472, 477 , 309 A.2d 886, 889 (1973).