Brady Discovery Rule Violation
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution's suppression of evidence that is favorable to the accused violates due process when the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment.
To establish a Brady discovery violation, the defendant must show:
(1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant;
(2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence;
(3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence;
(4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed. State v. Goulet, 1999 ND 80, P15, 593 N.W.2d 345.
The Brady rule does not apply to evidence the defendant could have obtained with reasonable diligence, and the defendant's failure to discover evidence from a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim the prosecution withheld that evidence. State v. Sievers, 543 N.W.2d 491, 495-96 (N.D. 1996).