Brady’s duty of disclosure does not extend post-conviction, but North Carolina state law creates a right to post-conviction access to exculpatory evidence that is protected by the federal Due Process Clause; a claim for violation requires proof of bad faith; bad faith is a jury issue; court reverses summary judgment in favor of defendants.
Denying qualified immunity for claims for fabrication and suppressing exculpatory evidence, law was clearly established by 1999.
Failure to explain meaning of column of data in cell phone records furnished to criminal defendant did not amount to failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Affirming Alvarez v. City of Brownsville, 904 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2018), no constitutional right to exculpatory evidence during plea bargaining.
Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that withholding of exculpatory evidence violates a Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and clearly established that a plaintiff need not show that the officer acted in bad faith when material exculpatory evidence was lost or destroyed and the evidence’s exculpatory value was apparent.
It was clearly established by 1999 that police forensic examiner was required to turn over exculpatory information to prosecutor under Brady, thus examiner who failed to turn over ballistics reports could be held liable under § 1983.
Finding sufficient evidence and affirming $15 million judgment against officer for withholding exculpatory evidence and fabricating evidence leading to conviction of plaintiff for murder; court notes plaintiff’s case was “thin,” but affords deference to jury’s factual determinations.