Brady doctrine

What is the name of your state? NY

I have a question regarding the Brady doctrine. If a prosecutor asks an agency official (say IRS) about an issue and the agency official gives an answer that would lead the prosecutor to beleive no case exists.

Then, after speaking with someone higher up at the IRS, the prosecutor realizes that what an individual did was actually illegal, (the first official was mistaken)

When prosecuting the person for the illegal act, does trhe prosecutor have to disclose under the Brady doctrine that a particular IRS official was under the same belief as the defendant as to how something was to be construed?

[CdwJava]

I think it would depend ... and I don't know if Brady is the best way to go about it.

If the prosecutor took some action - like dropping the case - based upon the first opinion, then re-opened it after speaking to the second official, I would think that the reasoning should be documents and would be part of the report in discovery. If the first official was just a phone call inquiry and then followed up with a phone call to another official - and no action was taken based upon the first opinion - then I don't see that it would have to be disclosed that the first official made an erroneous assumption.

If the prosecutor had lunch with a dozen friends and asked each of them the same question, would he also be required to dislose those conversations? It's doubtful.

However, nothing precludes the defense from soliciting its own expert opinions to try and make a reasonable argument that the error was in good faith and that even other experts held the same opinion as the defendant.

But, laws vary in each state ... and the fact that I am not an attorney may play in to my judgment on the matter.

Have you (or the person involved in this) thought to ask their attorney?

Carl