It’s this Brady-Mooney thing again.
It’s easy to see why prosecutors blur the distinction between the two. It’s a lot more difficult to understand why the defense bar does:
Until prosecutors are held personally accountable for concealing Brady, nothing will change. And that won’t happen as long as they’re immune from liability for their incompetence or malevolence.
“Malevolence” – that is, the intentional suppression of evidence tending to show a Defendant innocent by a prosecutor – has been a clear due process violation since 1935. Because Mooney. “Incompetence” – that is, prosecutors not knowing the evidence they have, or not realizing its exculpatory nature, and failing to disclose it – is sometimes a due process violation, and sometimes not, since 1963. Because Brady.
The point being that this distinction is pretty important, not to mention settled law although it seems many who should know that, don’t.
Some time ago I wondered – worried, really – about the criminal defense bar being as unaware of this distinction as the organized prosecutor’s groups have intended for the last, oh, 30 years. I further worried that the criminal defense bar might even be hostile to the idea of recovering this distinction.
Given the above quote, Greenfield is either unaware of the distinction, or hostile to it. Neither is a good sign, inasmuch as SHG is nothing if not a representative sample of one highly regarded portion of the criminal defense bar.