Insider Market Sense
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • Tech News
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick
Editor's PickInvesting

Skinner v. Louisiana Brief: Prosecutors Must Be Held Accountable for Withholding Exculpatory Evidence

by July 31, 2025
July 31, 2025

Matthew Cavedon and Laura Bondank

supreme court

Michael Wearry and James Skinner were convicted of the same murder more than twenty years ago. In 2016, the Supreme Court vacated Wearry’s conviction, finding that the prosecution’s failure to disclose material evidence in accordance with Brady v. Maryland violated Wearry’s due process rights. Following Wearry’s success, Skinner brought his own claim for postconviction relief, arguing that the Brady violations at issue in Wearry’s case likewise tainted his trial. But in a cursory two-page opinion, the Louisiana district court denied Skinner’s request and distinguished Wearry’s case without much explanation.

The rule established in Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence prior to trial. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear instructions, Brady violations remain one of the most common and most serious types of prosecutorial misconduct. Recent studies reveal that prosecutors often intentionally violate Brady but almost never face consequences. This crisis of accountability for prosecutors, combined with institutional pressures to achieve high conviction rates, encourages noncompliance with Brady and results in wrongful convictions.

This problem is compounded by the dominance of plea bargaining, which has usurped the jury trial as the most common method of resolving criminal cases. Courts remain split on whether Brady applies to plea bargaining, and prosecutors often require pleading defendants to waive their right to challenge their convictions on appeal. If defendants lack confidence that any trial they receive will be fair, due to the government withholding exculpatory evidence, they will be even more likely to forgo trial and plead guilty.

Cato has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to grant Skinner’s petition, vacate his sentence, and remand for a new trial. Doing so would reaffirm that compliance with Brady is a constitutional imperative, not a discretionary practice, and reinforce the safeguards needed to guarantee due process.

previous post
A Good Start: Congress Cuts Funding for USAID and Other Foreign Aid Programs
next post
Are Stablecoins CBDCs in Disguise? No

You may also like

Tariff “Inclusion” Process Comes with High Costs, Absurd...

August 22, 2025

Friday Feature: Helena Homeschool Enrichment Co-op

August 22, 2025

New Court Decision Out of Portugal Shows How...

August 22, 2025

From Tariff Shock to Mild Sting: How the...

August 22, 2025

Book Review: The Many Mistakes of Murder the...

August 21, 2025

On Nonexistent Crime “Emergencies”: Trump’s Politicization of the...

August 21, 2025

Mississippi’s Age Verification Law Could Impact Us All

August 21, 2025

Cash Benefits Minimally Affect Fertility

August 21, 2025

Deregulate the Remittance Industry

August 20, 2025

Preserving Educational Choice: Isolated Cases of Misuse Shouldn’t...

August 20, 2025
Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get Premium Articles For Free


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!
  • About us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2024 InsiderMarketSense.com All Rights Reserved.

Insider Market Sense
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • Tech News
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick