Philadelphia Federal Criminal Discovery: Obtaining Evidence from Prosecutors

| by Max Soni

Last Updated on: 15th December 2023, 07:25 pm

Philadelphia Federal Criminal Discovery: Obtaining Evidence from Prosecutors

Getting evidence from federal prosecutors in Philadelphia can be challenging for defense attorneys. However, there are certain rules and procedures in place that aim to ensure a fair discovery process.

Types of Evidence Prosecutors Must Disclose

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16, federal prosecutors are required to automatically disclose certain types of evidence to the defense, including:

• The defendant’s oral, written or recorded statements
• The defendant’s prior criminal record
• Documents and objects that are material to preparing the defense, or that the government intends to use in its case-in-chief at trial
• Reports of examinations and tests conducted by the government

However, prosecutors have wide discretion over what is considered “material to preparing the defense.” Often, the government takes a very narrow view and does not disclose evidence the defense would consider relevant and helpful.

Strategies for Obtaining Additional Evidence

Defense attorneys can employ various strategies to obtain evidence beyond what prosecutors initially disclose:

• File a Rule 16 motion seeking additional discovery – This asks the judge to compel prosecutors to disclose specific materials.
• Request exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland – This requires disclosure of evidence that is favorable to the accused.
• Send targeted requests or “informal requests” for evidence – This involves sending letters specifically describing materials wanted.
• Claim evidence is necessary to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
• Argue failure to disclose impedes the right to present a defense under the Sixth Amendment’s Compulsory Process Clause.

Defense lawyers can also request discovery conferences with prosecutors and the judge to try to resolve disputes over evidence informally without litigation.

Key Laws and Legal Precedents

There are several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that provide standards governing federal criminal discovery:

• Brady v. Maryland (1963) – This imposes an affirmative duty on prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence that is material to guilt or punishment. Favorable evidence is considered material if there is a reasonable probability it could affect the outcome of the case.
• Giglio v. United States (1972) – This requires prosecutors to disclose evidence affecting the credibility of government witnesses, such as plea bargains or immunity deals.
• Kyles v. Whitley (1995) – This held that prosecutors have a duty to learn of any exculpatory evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, such as police.

In addition to these Constitutional precedents, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Justice Manual contain policies directing prosecutors to take a broad view of disclosure. Defense attorneys can cite these standards in motions to compel evidence.
Getting evidence in federal criminal cases involves complex rules and procedures. But defense lawyers have several strategies to obtain the materials necessary to confront the government’s accusations and build an effective defense.

References

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).