One reason that someone may be able to seek post-conviction relief after being convicted of a crime is if prosecutorial misconduct is discovered after the trial and after the deadline for appealing the conviction has passed.
There are a number of things that can qualify as prosecutorial misconduct. One is known as a violation of the “Brady Rule.” This rule requires prosecutors to fully disclose any exculpatory evidence they discover. That means any evidence prosecutors have that could possibly exonerate a defendant or is at least in their favor must be disclosed to the defense.
What is a Brady violation?
When prosecutors fail to disclose this evidence, it’s considered a violation of a defendant’s constitutional right to due process and specifically to a fair trial. It’s also known as a “Brady violation.”
The name comes from a 1963 Supreme Court case (Brady v. Maryland). Prosecutors who got a murder conviction and death sentence for Brady and another defendant withheld the co-defendant’s confession to being the one who actually committed the murder. While the high court’s ruling that prosecutors engaged in misconduct didn’t free Brady, it did change his sentence from death to life in prison. (He was later freed by the governor.)
Withholding evidence that can potentially be favorable to a defendant, whether it fits with the prosecution’s narrative of a crime or not, is now widely recognized as misconduct and can result in sanctions for those who do it. Later Supreme Court rulings have clarified that any evidence prosecutors have that could be favorable to the defendant must be disclosed to the defense as soon as possible, even if they don’t request it. Those who don’t do so can face sanctions from the court.
Not all of this evidence may make a difference in the verdict or the sentence. However, if it’s discovered that prosecutors knowingly withheld it, it’s certainly worth exploring. Having experienced legal guidance is crucial.