Parter v. Co. of Riverside

Court rules Brady claim is not available to someone held for four years prior to trial due to suppression of exculpatory evidence because there was no judicial proceeding in which he was prejudiced due to the failure to disclose; court suggests there may be a different claim based on continued detention after it was or should have been known he was entitled to release, but doesn’t decide that issue; in my view court is wrong about the scope of a Brady due process violation, which should only require a deprivation of liberty rather than prejudice at a judicial proceeding, see Michael Avery, “Paying for Silence: the Liability of Police Officers under Section 1983 for Suppressing Exculpatory Evidence,” 13 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 1, 2003.