Understanding Federal Criminal Discovery: What Evidence Can Help Your Defense
Contents
When facing federal criminal charges, having access to all available evidence is crucial for building an effective defense. The discovery process in federal court is governed by specific rules and laws that determine what evidence the prosecution must disclose. Understanding these key rules can help defendants access favorable information to challenge the government’s case.
The Bedrock: Brady Material
The Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland established that prosecutors must disclose any evidence that is favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. This exculpatory evidence is known as “Brady material.” If evidence emerges post-conviction that prosecutors withheld Brady material, defendants can appeal based on a Brady violation.
But Brady places the burden on prosecutors to evaluate which evidence is exculpatory – a subjective judgment. Defense attorneys must still press for any items that could potentially help counter the prosecution’s arguments, not just clear-cut proof of innocence.
Expanding Discovery: Rule 16
While Brady covers exculpatory evidence, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 deals with general discovery obligations. Upon request, prosecutors must provide defendants with their own statements, criminal records, certain physical evidence, and expert witness testimony.
Rule 16 also requires sharing a defendant’s oral statements made before or after arrest. But ambiguity around what constitutes a “statement” allows prosecutors leeway in disclosure. Defense attorneys should clarify exactly what oral statements they want covered to prevent omission of relevant remarks.
Impeachment Evidence: Giglio Material
Along with exculpatory evidence, Giglio v. United States requires prosecutors to provide potential impeachment evidence about government witnesses. This includes plea deals, immunity grants, or facts regarding bias or lack of credibility.
Giglio’s importance became clear in the Supreme Court’s Connick v. Thompson case, where prosecutors withheld eyewitness deals and police reports. As expert New York attorney James Publishing notes, always specifically request investigators’ notes from interrogations. This impeachment evidence is invaluable for undermining witness credibility.
Witness Statements: The Jencks Act
Prosecutors commonly interview witnesses multiple times before trial to nail down consistent accounts. The Jencks Act regulates defense access to these statements. It prohibits disclosure until after the witness testifies on direct examination at trial.
But federal judges have latitude in ordering earlier release of Jencks material if it would help expedite trials. Defense lawyers should argue for seeing prior witness statements well before trial to properly plan cross-examination.
Parallel Construction Investigations
Concerningly, prosecutors sometimes engage in “parallel construction” investigations to conceal illegal evidence gathering. They essentially recreate an alternate evidentiary basis for charges, while hiding constitutional violations in the original case.
If the true origins of a federal investigation seem suspicious, press prosecutors for more background details. Document any ethical concerns over parallel construction for appeal. The government should not profit from unlawful investigative practices.
Discovery Pitfalls to Avoid
While federal discovery rules aid transparency, many pitfalls remain:
- Over-reliance on good faith: Discovery abuses still occur. Always verify the prosecution has met obligations rather than assuming good faith compliance.
- Non-disclosure of confidential informants: Protecting informant identities can enable non-disclosure of potential Brady or Giglio material relating to them.
- Jencks Act suppression: Since witness statements need not be produced until after testimony, prosecutors can discourage defendants from going to trial by withholding information needed to contradict witnesses.
- Parallel construction obscurity: Reconstructed cases mask unconstitutional evidence gathering, impeding challenges.
Conclusion
Navigating federal criminal discovery involves complex rules and laws governing favorable evidence and impeachment material. While Brady, Rule 16, Giglio, and the Jencks Act expand prosecutors’ responsibilities, defense attorneys must zealously demand access to all potentially relevant items.
Parallel construction further enables opaque discovery procedures that conceal improper investigations. Document any suspicions of ethical violations for later appeals.
Understanding federal discovery rules provides a roadmap to access evidence that could unravel the government’s case. But defense lawyers must remain vigilant to ensure prosecutors fully meet disclosure obligations. Compelling compliance helps secure a defendant’s right to transparent justice.