Brady Violation – Part Two

In our legal system, prosecutors are constitutionally required to turn over evidence that could help clear a defendant or undermine the government’s case. Yet decades of data show that this duty is frequently violated. Withholding of exculpatory evidence – known as a Brady violation after the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland – remains a recurring feature of the American criminal justice system. It is not the norm in every routine prosecution, but it is prevalent enough, especially in serious cases that later prove to be wrongful convictions, to exact a heavy human cost.

 The Scale of the Problem

The National Registry of Exonerations, the most comprehensive database of known U.S. wrongful convictions since 1989, provides the clearest empirical picture. In analyses covering roughly 2,400 exonerations, concealment of exculpatory evidence contributed to approximately 44 percent of cases. More recent annual data reinforce the pattern: in 2024, official misconduct appeared in 71 percent of the 147 recorded exonerations, with failure to disclose exculpatory evidence specifically noted in 95 of those cases. In 2025, official misconduct featured in 72 percent of 97 exonerations, including 55 instances of nondisclosure. Rates are even higher in homicide cases. (https://exonerationregistry.org)

Academic research reaches similar conclusions. A major study by Brandon Garrett and colleagues examined more than 800 post-conviction Brady claims and found that courts ruled a violation had occurred in roughly 10 percent of those decided on the merits. In many additional cases, judges acknowledged that favorable evidence had been withheld but denied relief under the demanding “materiality” standard. (The Brady Database – https://bradydatabase.law.duke.edu)

The largest systematic examination of actual adjudicated Brady violations – Jennifer Mason McAward’s 2025 study of 386 state and federal rulings spanning 2004-2020 – found that the defendants in those cases spent an average of 10.4 years in prison before relief. Collectively they lost more than 3,809 years of freedom. Prosecutors and law enforcement were responsible for the overwhelming majority of the suppressions, and intentional (“bad faith”) nondisclosure was common, though good-faith errors and systemic failures also played significant roles. Violations were concentrated in a relatively small number of states and disproportionately involved homicide prosecutions. (Jennifer M. McAward, Understanding Brady Violations, 78 Vand. L. Rev. 875 (2025))

These figures almost certainly understate the true prevalence. Because Brady violations involve the deliberate or negligent concealment of evidence, many never come to light. Defendants often lack the resources or access to discover what was withheld, and courts apply a high bar for relief.