The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held in a disciplinary proceeding (In re Riek) that prosecutors' ethical obligation to disclose exculpatory
evidence is not broader than the constitutional standards
that apply under Brady v. Maryland.
The accepted interpretation of the ABA Model Rules, and an ABA Formal Opinion, take the view that the ethical obligation is broader. See ABA Formal Ethics Op. 09-454. But not all jurisdictions agree. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the ABA's position in Disciplinary Counsel v. Kellogg-Martin, 923 N.E.2d 125 (Ohio 2010), while North Dakota has embraced it (In re Feland, 820 N.W.2d 672 (N.D. 2012)). Louisiana and Colorado have also ruled on the subject before the ABA's Opinion in In re Jordan, 913 So. 2d 775 (La. 2005 and In re Attorney C, 47 P.3d 1167 (Colo. 2002).
Also, the professional responsibility rules in at least two jurisdictions state, or can be fairly understood to say, that a prosecutors' duty is not broader under the rules than under Brady. See D.C. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.8 cmt. 1 (2012) and N.C. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.8(d) (2012).
Also, the professional responsibility rules in at least two jurisdictions state, or can be fairly understood to say, that a prosecutors' duty is not broader under the rules than under Brady. See D.C. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.8 cmt. 1 (2012) and N.C. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.8(d) (2012).
Most jurisdictions, however, have yet to decide the issue directly. It will be interesting to see the case law that develops.
Thanks to the ABA/BNA Laywers' Manual on Professional Conduct for the update and link.
