- Duty:disclose favorable evidence.
- Giglio:impeachment material too.
- Ongoing:continues through trial.
- Remedy:new trial possible.
Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must turn over evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to guilt or punishment. Giglio v. United States extends that duty to impeachment evidence — anything that undercuts the credibility of the State's witnesses, like deals, prior inconsistent statements, or an officer's misconduct history. Suppressing this evidence violates due process, and a defendant can move to compel its disclosure. It is one of the most important pretrial protections, working alongside ordinary criminal discovery.
The Brady Rule
The State doesn't just have to share the evidence it plans to use — it has an affirmative constitutional duty to disclose evidence that helps the defense. Under Brady v. Maryland, suppressing evidence favorable to the accused violates due process when the evidence is material — meaning there's a reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome. This applies whether the defense asked for it or not, and whether the suppression was intentional or not.
The Giglio Extension: Impeachment Evidence
Giglio v. United States made clear that Brady covers impeachment evidence, not just evidence of innocence. That includes:
- Deals, promises, or leniency given to a cooperating witness in exchange for testimony;
- Prior inconsistent statements by a State's witness;
- A witness's bias, motive to lie, or credibility problems;
- An officer's documented dishonesty or misconduct that bears on credibility (sometimes maintained on so-called "Brady/Giglio lists").
If the State's case depends on a witness, evidence that undermines that witness can be just as valuable as evidence about the offense itself.
It's the Prosecution's Duty — and It's Ongoing
The duty rests on the prosecution, and it extends to favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf, including police. It is also continuing: if favorable evidence surfaces later, it must be disclosed then. A defendant who suspects favorable evidence is being withheld can move to compel disclosure and, where appropriate, ask the court to review materials.
What Happens When the Duty Is Violated
Remedies depend on timing and prejudice. Before or during trial, the court can order disclosure, grant a continuance, or exclude evidence. After a conviction, a genuine Brady violation — favorable, suppressed, material evidence — can be grounds to overturn the result. The seriousness of the remedy reflects how central these disclosure duties are to a fair trial.
Updated May 18, 2026 · Law verified as of June 8, 2026. This article is general information about Minnesota law, not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Brady material?
Evidence favorable to the defense that is material to guilt or punishment. Under Brady v. Maryland , the prosecution must disclose it, and suppressing it violates due process when there's a reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.
Related guides
Tampering With Evidence Charges in Minnesota
How tampering with physical evidence is charged in Minnesota — destroying, concealing, or altering evidence, the intent requirement, and how it differ...
Read the guideMinnesota Racketeering (RICO) Charges: What the State Must Prove
Minnesota's RICO law targets organized criminal enterprises. Learn what the state must prove, the penalties, forfeiture, and how these cases are defen...
Read the guideThe Accident Defense in Minnesota Criminal Cases
How accident works as a Minnesota criminal defense — when a genuine accident negates criminal intent, how it differs from self-defense, and why it fai...
Read the guideThe information on this article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.