Since its establishment in a seminal Supreme Court of the United States decision the Brady Rule, which requires government disclosure of material evidence favorable to defendants in certain circumstances, has become an integral due process right for defendants in criminal trials. In crafting the Brady Rule, however, the Supreme Court did not specify if the rule is also applicable in administrative proceedings. First, this discussion focuses how lower courts have interpreted the Supreme Court’s omission of such a specification to mean the Brady Rule is not applicable in administrative proceedings.
Second, this discussion explains how a Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards (SECNAVCORB) Policy Letter creates a Brady Rule equivalent that is applicable to Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings because it requires the PEB to disclose to the service members any information, including information beneficial to the service members, it obtains that is not already known by the service members. In addition, this discussion argues that the Brady Rule created by the Policy Letter should be codified because doing so would continue to ensure that service members’ disabilities are fairly assessed by the PEB. Lastly, this
…show more content…
In United States v. Agurs, the Court set out three situations in which the Brady Rule applies: 1) the government must disclose material evidence that it is aware of or should be aware of that indicates a witness perjured his/her testimony, 2) the government must disclose material evidence specifically requested by the defendant before trial, and 3) the government must disclose exculpatory evidence even if the defendant does not make a request or only makes a general request for such evidence. The Court’s decision in Agurs also provided that the definition of “material evidence” for purposes of the Brady Rule is information that creates a reasonable doubt of the defendants’