Commonwealth v. Brady
Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa. 1986), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1986 which overruled close to two centuries of decisional law in Pennsylvania and established a common law exception to the rule against hearsay. Rule of law. The decision stands for the proposition that the recorded, adopted statement of a witness to a crime "inconsistent with her testimony at trial" is properly admitted for both purposes of impeachment and as substantive evidence: "for its truth." In "Commonwealth v. Lively", the rule was extended with respect to  verbatim contemporaneous recording[s] of . . . oral statement[s], provided the "recordings" are electronic, audiotape, or videotape. Facts. The facts as set forth in the majority opinion are excerpted: Application. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Brady, a criminal defendant could obtain a judgment of acquittal when the Commonwealth's case relied completely or principally on out of court statements by witnesses. The typical scenario would involve a witness that recanted or disavowed an earlier statement made to police officers (see Facts section "infra") concerning the defendant's liability. Under Brady and its progeny, it is then for the finder of  fact to determine whether the witness is telling the truth now, or whether the witness was being truthful when he or she gave the first statement to the police.