Although the prosecution often uses social media evidence to show “intent” for all manner of human conduct, the legal challenges to social media evidence are growing in strength.

and Where Do We Go from Here?

Rule 5(f)(1) requires judges to inform prosecutors of their obligation to produce exculpatory information and provides that courts may hold prosecutors accountable if they do not comply with a Brady order. Rule 5(f)(2) requires that each circuit council promulgate a Model Order that a district court “may use as it determines is appropriate.”

The amended Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5 requires that in all criminal proceedings, at the first scheduled court date at which both the prosecutor and defense counsel are present, the judge must issue an order confirming the prosecutor’s disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland. Defense lawyers should consider NACDL’s Model Standing Order on the Prosecution’s Brady Obligations.

Discovery rules that leave defendants in the dark about the evidence against them undermine fairness and due process and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. Criminal discovery can be divided into two categories: (1) disclosure of so-called “exculpatory evidence” that is constitutionally required under the Supreme Court’s 1963 Brady opinion and (2) disclosure that is required by statute or court rule. There is great variation among jurisdictions regarding the amount of discovery required by statute/rule and even the Brady decision.

NACDL sued the Justice Department seeking disclosure of its Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book.  This publication reportedly covers the law, policy, and practice of prosecutors’ disclosure obligations.  The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision that the publication is protected work product. Included here are key pleadings filed in the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' (NACDL) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking the Department of Justice's Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book.

NACDL is dedicated to securing meaningful, systematic reform and to preventing the insidious harm caused when a prosecutor carelessly, or purposefully, fails in his or her duties to us all. Prosecutorial overreaching and misconduct distort the truth-finding process and taint the credibility of the criminal justice system, including the outcomes they generate. When prosecutors’ fundamental obligations are ignored and individuals’ rights are violated in order to secure a conviction, little can be done to rectify the wrongs inflicted upon the individuals involved and on the system itself.

Fifty years ago in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure to disclose favorable information to a defendant in a criminal prosecution violates the constitution when that information is material to guilt or punishment. This common law standard, often referred to as the Brady rule, has created confusion about what information must be disclosed, when it must be disclosed, and what remedies exist when favorable information is not disclosed.

Comments to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules regarding proposed amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

NACDL comments on S.B. No. 653, an act concerning open-file disclosure in criminal cases.

Links to significant reports and academic articles on discovery practices and reform proposals

Collects discovery reform proposals and model laws from various organizations

The Due Process Protections Act of 2020 amends the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure to require federal district judges to enter an order in each case confirming prosecutors' obligation to disclose evidence exculpatory to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and setting forth consequences for failing to do so. In response to this new law, NACDL's Discovery Reform Task Force drafted and promulgated a Model Standing Discovery Order Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act.

(Pre-Search Instructions and Post-Search Reasonableness)

A Report by NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Advocacy Committee Reporter, Steven R. Morrison [Released July 2014]

The Fourth Amendment has entered the digital age. New surveillance technologies and programs — from GPS tracking devices to automated license plate readers to bulk data collection — have upended traditional law enforcement practices and created new challenges for defense lawyers. This report offers an overview of this symposium and the substantive areas of concern related to new technological and legal changes that impact Fourth Amendment protections in criminal cases. [Released June 2016]

Many recent cases have exposed the fact that federal prosecutors, whether through negligence or by design, all too often fail to abide by their constitutional duty to disclose information favorable to the defendant. To help ensure fairness in federal criminal proceedings, the Board of Directors of NACDL has endorsed model legislation drafted by NACDL's Discovery Reform Task Force that would require the government to disclose all information favorable to the accused in relation to any issue to be determined in a federal criminal case. [Released May 2011]