When a person is charged with a crime, the strength of the prosecution’s case often receives the most attention. What receives less attention, but deserves far more, is the evidence that exists in the prosecution’s possession that might prove the defendant’s innocence or cast doubt on the government’s theory. This evidence has a name in the law: exculpatory evidence. And withholding it is not just unfair. In many circumstances, it is a constitutional violation with serious consequences for the case.
At Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, P.C., our criminal defense attorneys are diligent about identifying, requesting, and litigating over exculpatory evidence in every case we handle. With over 65 years of practice in Pennsylvania courtrooms, we know how to protect our clients’ right to a fair trial.
What Is Exculpatory Evidence?
Exculpatory evidence is any evidence that tends to show that the defendant did not commit the charged offense, that they lacked the required mental state, or that the evidence against them is less reliable than the prosecution has represented. Common examples include eyewitness statements that contradict the prosecution’s account, physical evidence that points to a different perpetrator, records that undermine the credibility of a key government witness, and forensic findings that are inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory of the case.
Exculpatory evidence can appear in many forms: police reports, surveillance footage, phone records, witness interview notes, lab results, or any other material that might benefit the defense. Under the constitutional framework established by Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution has an affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Our attorneys at Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford pursue discovery requests aggressively to ensure our clients receive every piece of evidence they are entitled to by law.
What Does Brady v. Maryland Require?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brady v. Maryland established that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused, and material to guilt or punishment, violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This obligation applies regardless of whether the prosecution acted in good faith or bad faith. The critical question is whether the evidence was material — meaning whether there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have produced a different outcome.
This duty of disclosure applies not only to evidence in the prosecutor’s direct possession but to any evidence held by law enforcement agencies working on the case, including police departments, crime labs, and investigators.
What Is Impeachment Evidence?
A related category covered by Brady and its progeny is impeachment evidence — material that can be used to challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. This includes prior criminal convictions of a witness, evidence that a witness received a benefit in exchange for testimony, documented inconsistencies in prior statements, and any history of dishonesty or misconduct. Withholding impeachment evidence is just as serious as withholding direct exculpatory evidence.
What Happens When a Prosecutor Withholds Exculpatory Evidence?
If a court finds that the prosecution withheld material exculpatory or impeachment evidence, the consequences can be significant. A Brady violation can result in the suppression of related evidence, dismissal of charges, reversal of a conviction on appeal, or a new trial. In cases where a wrongful conviction resulted from deliberate suppression of evidence, additional remedies may be available.
Brady violations are not rare. Documented cases of prosecutors withholding evidence that affected trial outcomes have led to overturned convictions across the country, underscoring the importance of vigorous defense work in identifying and pursuing these violations. The Innocence Project has documented numerous wrongful convictions tied to prosecutorial non-disclosure.
Frequently Asked Questions About Exculpatory Evidence in Pennsylvania
What is exculpatory evidence?
Exculpatory evidence is any evidence that tends to show the defendant did not commit the crime, lacked criminal intent, or that the prosecution’s evidence is less reliable than claimed. It includes eyewitness accounts, forensic findings, surveillance footage, phone records, or anything else that supports the defense’s position.
Are prosecutors required to share exculpatory evidence?
Yes. Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. This duty extends to evidence held by law enforcement agencies working on the case, not just evidence in the prosecutor’s own files.
What happens if a prosecutor withholds exculpatory evidence?
A Brady violation can result in suppression of related evidence, dismissal of charges, or reversal of a conviction on appeal. An experienced defense attorney can file motions to compel disclosure and, if violations are discovered, move for appropriate remedies including dismissal or a new trial.
What is the difference between exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence?
Exculpatory evidence directly supports the defendant’s innocence or undermines the prosecution’s case. Impeachment evidence is used to challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. Both types must be disclosed under Brady and its progeny.
Contact Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, P.C.
Every person accused of a crime in Pennsylvania is entitled to the full benefit of evidence the government possesses, including evidence that supports the defense. At Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, P.C., we pursue discovery aggressively, review all provided materials carefully, and do not hesitate to file motions when the prosecution has failed to meet its disclosure obligations.
Contact our firm at (215) 822-7575 or use our online contact form to speak with one of our defense attorneys today.
Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford P.C.
Pennsylvania Attorney's
August 11, 2026
