Order — United States v. Christopher Lee Montgomery (Western District of Oklahoma, Document 71)

Summary

This Order in United States of America v. Christopher Lee Montgomery, Case No. CR-19-247-G, from the Western District of Oklahoma, reminds counsel, in accordance with the Due Process Protections Act, of the prosecutor's disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. It quotes Brady that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or to punishment. A footnote says the Act, effective October 21, 2020, requires that the parties be informed of an amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5. The order states that possible consequences of a violation may include exclusion of evidence at trial, a finding of contempt, granting of a continuance, and dismissal of the charges with prejudice.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

          Case 5:19-cr-00247-G Document 71 Filed 09/22/21 Page 1 of 2




                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                     WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                 )
                                          )
                     Plaintiff,           )
                                          )
v.                                        )      Case No. CR-19-247-G
                                          )
CHRISTOPHER LEE                           )
MONTGOMERY,                               )
                                          )
                     Defendant.           )

                                        ORDER

       In accordance with the Due Process Protections Act,1 counsel are reminded of the

disclosure obligations of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and

its progeny. In particular, “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an

accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or

to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady, 373

U.S. at 87. “[E]vidence is ‘material’ within the meaning of Brady when there is a

reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding

would have been different.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469–470 (2009). A “reasonable

probability” does not mean that the defendant “would more likely than not have received



1
  The Due Process Protections Act, PL 116-182, [S 1380], effective October 21, 2020,
requires that the parties be informed regarding an amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 5. By this legislation, subsection (f) of the Rule has been redesignated as
subsection (g), with new subsection (f) hereinafter designated as “REMINDER OF
PROSECUTORIAL OBLIGATION.” The amendment serves to remind prosecutors of
their obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963), and its progeny.
           Case 5:19-cr-00247-G Document 71 Filed 09/22/21 Page 2 of 2




a different verdict with the evidence,” only that the likelihood of a different result is great

enough to “undermine[ ] confidence in the outcome of the trial.” Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S.

73, 75 (2012).

       Possible consequences for a violation of this Order may include, but are not limited

to, exclusion of evidence at trial, a finding of contempt, granting of a continuance, and

dismissal of the charges with prejudice.

       IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2020.


File and source

File

71.pdf

Size

120,409 bytes

SHA-256

bc17474b0a7aed9e1dc46e17cb5a0fe5e5db1b0d7fc64930f98ff2f2eb39f83c

Our copy

71.pdf

Original

No public link identified.