Withheld evidence in criminal trials
Turner v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court left Turner and the other men’s convictions in place, deciding the withheld evidence was not material under Brady.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-2 · June 22, 2017 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- Charles Turner and other men convicted in Catherine Fuller’s murder argued that prosecutors withheld evidence favorable to the defense, including information about a possible alternative perpetrator.
- Who it affects
- Turner and the other men’s convictions remain in place because the Court found the withheld evidence did not undermine confidence in the verdict.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court decided the evidence did not create a reasonable chance of a different outcome under Brady and agreed with the D.C. Court of Appeals, leaving the convictions in place.
The dispute centered on Brady, the rule requiring prosecutors to share favorable evidence with the defense when it matters to guilt.
Question presented
1. Whether, under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), courts may consider information that arises after trial in determining the materiality of suppressed evidence. 2. Whether, in a case where no physical evidence inculpated petitioners, the prosecution's suppression of information that included the identification of a plausible alternative perpetrator violated petitioners' due process rights under Brady .
What the Court decided
Holding
The withheld evidence is not material under Brady. 116 A. 3d 894, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court concluded the withheld evidence was not enough to undermine confidence in the trial’s outcome, so it was not material under Brady.
The vote
From the opinions
“The defendants thus undermine each other’s arguments at every turn.”
What's next
The D.C. Court of Appeals’ ruling remains in place, so the convictions stand.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Justice Kagan think the Court should consider?
- She argued the Court should consider whether a shared defense based on new evidence about another perpetrator could reasonably have changed even one juror’s vote.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.