Hi and welcome to the 15th addendum of Undisclosed, the State v. Adnan Sayyad.

This week's addendum is Brady.

My name is Rabia Jadri. I'm an attorney and national security fellow and I blog at

Split the Moon.com and I'm joined with my colleagues Susan Simpson and Colin Miller.

Susan is an associate at the Volkaw Law Group in Washington, D.C., and she blogs at the View from

LL2. And Collett is an associate dean and professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law,

and he's also the editor of the

evidence prof blog.

Now this week we'll be building on where we last left off, with Christina Gutierrez

fighting to get the state to hand over the evidence they were compelled to under the law.

Remember, Tina had to prepare for the trial. But even as the very first day of the first trial loomed large,

the state had refused to turn over things as vital as Jay's statements to the police.

So we'll take a look at what else they refused to hand over

and how Tina didn't court when she raised these violations as Brady motions.

And then before we wrap up, we'll get to a few listener questions.

Thank you. Brady motions. And then before we wrap up, we'll get to a few listener questions. So in episode 15, we talked about the process of discovery, the way in which the defense

gets information from the prosecution and vice versa. And we've talked extensively about Brady violations and the

prosecution's duty to produce material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Now, one way the defense

can make sure the prosecution is upholding its duties under Brady and the due process clause is to file

Brady motions asking for what's known as Brady hearings, where basically

the defense can claim that the prosecution is not turning over vital pieces of information,

whether it be expert evidence, witness statements, or physical documents.

...