Blindfolded Bargains.

The article focuses on the constitutional and ethical obligations of prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence during plea bargaining under Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court decision requiring disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense at trial. While Brady’s disclosure requirements are well-established for trials, the Supreme Court in United States v. Ruiz (2002) declined to extend these obligations to impeachment evidence during plea negotiations, leaving unresolved whether directly exculpatory evidence must be disclosed pre-plea. This has led to a circuit split, with some courts requiring disclosure of exculpatory evidence before guilty pleas to ensure voluntariness and fairness, while others reject Brady’s applicability in plea bargaining. The article argues that expanding Brady obligations to plea bargaining would enhance fairness, reduce wrongful guilty pleas, and improve defendants’ ability to make informed decisions, given that plea bargaining dominates the U.S. criminal justice system. [Extracted from the article]