CA3: Brady doesn’t apply to SW materials

“Defendants also assert that the Government withheld impeaching information about Ferrante. Ferrante, however, did not testify at trial and only served as the affiant for a key search warrant. Brady does not entitle a defendant to disclosures of impeaching information as to a search warrant affiant. See Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809, 815-16 (6th Cir. 1998) (explaining distinction between duties under Brady and Franks v.Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)); United States v. Banks, 104 F.4th 496, 509 n.3 (4th Cir. 2024) (‘We have never held that Brady and Giglio apply to evidence bearing on the warrant-application stage as opposed to evidence admitted at trial.’).” United States v. Miner, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26233 (3d Cir. Aug. 27, 2026).

Defendant was alleged to have attempted to buy a mailbox key from a postal worker, and the postal worker described him. There was no photo array. Based on their investigation the Postal Inspector had enough for probable cause to show that it was defendant and supported the warrant for his place. He had no standing as to the cell phone in his girlfriend’s purse. United States v. Hudson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191779 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Due process, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.