Criminal discovery in the United States: A system of relations

Young, Catharine

Permalink

https://hdl.handle.net/2142/122039 Copy

Description

Title

Criminal discovery in the United States: A system of relations

Author(s)

Young, Catharine

Issue Date

2023-12-05

Director of Research (if dissertation) or Advisor (if thesis)

• Sanfilippo, Madelyn R
• Jones, Faye E

Department of Study

Information Sciences

Discipline

Library & Information Science

Degree Granting Institution

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Degree Name

M.S.

Degree Level

Thesis

Keyword(s)

• Information Law
• Criminal Discovery
• Criminal Procedure
• Information Ethics
• Government Information

Abstract

The right to discovery was not guaranteed for criminal defendants for much of the United States’ history. It was built up slowly over the course of decades, and in 1963 the Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland set the precedent that a criminal defendant’s right to due process is violated when information that is material and exculpatory to their defense is suppressed by the prosecution. The Brady decision found that criminal defendants have the right to access certain information in possession of the prosecution as part of that process. What the Brady decision did not do was develop a template for discovery exchange or definitively explain how prosecutors should identify material and exculpatory information. The vagueness of the Brady decision created a great need for interpretation among rule makers, prosecutors, and courts throughout the United States. As a result, the rules that govern criminal discovery exchange today differ drastically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, meaning that the scope and methods used for information exchange during the criminal process vary among the many different courts in the United States. There are divisive opinions about how criminal discovery should function. The primary argument that exists around criminal discovery discusses whether the open or closed-file model drives fairness. The closed-file model prescribes the disclosure of very little information— sometimes only material and exculpatory information—and the open-file model promotes broad disclosures of information. More recent scholarship discusses aspects of discovery other than information scope, but the literature does not examine how the interactions of different components of discovery rules holistically affect due process. This research intentionally considers criminal discovery rules in their entirety, rather than by their individual components. This thesis examines discovery rules as systems of relations among all components and illustrate that, in contrast to the existing literature on the subject of criminal discovery, the function of the rule is much more dependent on the system of interrelated parts than any individual components that make up the rule. Fifty state-level discovery rules were examined over two research phases. During the first phase of research, possible harms for different stakeholders that might occur as a result of the application of an open or closed-file discovery rule were identified. A potential remedy for each harm was synthesized, and the remedies were combined to create a model discovery rule that balances the interests of the stakeholders. A survey was then conducted to evaluate each state’s compliance with the model rule. The survey revealed that states do not conform to strictly open or closed-file approaches, but instead exist on a spectrum of openness that is influenced by a combination of information, infrastructure, and flexibility. During Phase 2, the state rules were evaluated once again, this time using social science research methods to understand the rules as systems of relations. Through close reading and constant comparison, conceptual codes were derived to explain the mechanics of criminal discovery rules. Results indicate that the infrastructure and flexibility built into discovery rules do more to impact the criminal discovery process than the information prescribed to be exchanged. The requirement for information to be made accessible to defendants means nothing if there is no infrastructure or flexibility around the circumstances of that access. To effectively promote fairness during the criminal discovery process, the question is not how open or broad the scope of information should be but rather how a discovery rule governs that information exchange. The way that discovery functions is highly dependent on the local and state-level discovery rules, meaning that the power and responsibility to ensure the fair administration of criminal discovery lies at the local and state level. This research shows how lawmakers and their constituents can assess the discovery rules that are currently in place; not by focusing solely on what information must be exchanged, but by ensuring that the entire system is working together to promote fairness.

Graduation Semester

2023-12

Type of Resource

Thesis

Copyright and License Information

Copyright 2023 Catharine Young Murphy

Owning Collections