Opinion ID: 1249167
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brady v. Maryland is Inapplicable

Text: First, the court finds some support in cases such as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), where the remedy for suppressed evidence is retrial, not dismissal. [15] This is true, but the Brady rule is not applicable to this case. When, as in Brady, the prosecution has withheld exculpatory evidence, a new trial, at which the evidence can be produced, is the appropriate remedy, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady, 373 U.S. at 104, 83 S.Ct. at 1197. As the majority says today, Brady makes sense. [16] Its application to this case, however, makes no sense. In this case, the evidence is not available for retrial because it was destroyed before testing. Retrial would leave us with the same issue: determining what remedy to invoke when the evidence has not just been withheld but destroyed.