Abstract
Part I examines two competing models of due process that the Court uses when considering criminal procedure rights. The first approach extends deference to state legislatures and historical traditions. The alternative approach, advocated here, recognizes due process as a vibrant, fluid source of rights that balances the equities of competing prosecutorial and defense interests, with the overarching goal of attaining accurate dispositions in criminal cases. The article proceeds to apply the second approach in determining the scope of the government’s obligations to provide access to its evidence. Part II suggests that the Court has failed to sufficiently provide constitutionally guaranteed due process access to evidence, and addresses three specific problems.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation
Leonard Sosnov,
Brady Reconstructed: An Overdue Expansion of Rights and Remedies,
45
N.M. L. Rev.
171
(2014).
Available at:
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol45/iss1/7
