Courtesy photo

Kamala Harris

Just what information must prosecutors divulge to the defense, and when is it legally mandated?

A panel of 10 legal authorities debated the who, what, when, where and why of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Brady at the UC Hastings College of Law on Friday morning. 

Thanks to the city's crime lab scandal, Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 ruling, has received a lot of press in San Francisco. The ruling required prosecutors in criminal cases to turn over any evidence that could be considered favorable to a defendant, including evidence that challenges the credibility of a witness.

The crime lab scandal arose earlier this year after former lab technician Deborah Madden, who tested drugs in the San Francisco Police Department’s crime lab, admitted to skimming drug samples. A judge soon took District Attorney Kamala Harris' office to task for not revealing its prior knowledge of Madden’s misconduct and for failing to disclose the criminal records of other police department employees who serve as witnesses in criminal cases – a requirement of Brady.

Students sat amid lawyers and professors to watch the hour-long discussion, one of three panels focused on prosecutorial ethics.

The consensus on the panel, which was heavily dominated by current and former defense attorneys, was that prosecutors should always disclose exculpatory evidence.

“If you got it, they get it,” said Justice Carol Corrigan, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court.

From there, the opinions varied.

Assistant public defender Phoenix Streets said prosecutors should produce relevant evidence before even a plea agreement. Private criminal defense attorney Cristina Arguedas argued that prosecutors have an obligation to investigate the backgrounds of all witnesses. In response, Assistant DA Harry Dorfman and Hastings professor Rory Little argued that such investigations are not the responsibility of prosecutors, who are currently challenged by limited time and resources, and that such information could be used by the defendants to create excuses and discredit solid evidence. 

“I don’t want to give you a strategic advantage that I believe will be used corruptively,” Little said. “I don’t want to show you the wrinkles in my case.”

Despite the ugly public debate over the scandal, surprisingly few words were exchanged between Public Defender Jeff Adachi and Assistant Dorfman, the only representative of the DA’s office present. Dorfman mostly agreed with many on the panel, and the discussion seemed to take place outside the scope of the scandal, which continues to wrack the city’s criminal justice system.

To date, Harris’ office has not released a list of police department personnel with criminal records. But in recent months, defense attorneys say they’ve received intermittent letters detailing some of those records –after their clients were already convicted.

“We don’t even know how we’re going to proceed until we have all of the materials,” said Streets during the panel. “What it comes down to is the individual. That defendant who’s been charged with the crime – it’s their right to have a fair trial. It’s their right to have due process. If we’re not getting from the prosecution all the information that’s relevant to the case, then that client’s rights are not being respected or protected.”