Delray Price was a passenger sitting in the right rear seat of a car driven by Rosie Lewis. A friend of Rosie Lewis sat in the right front seat and another man sat in the right rear seat. Portland police officers saw the car and recognized Price and the other man as being parole violators. They pulled over the car and arrested the two men. Prior to pulling over the vehicle they saw Price bend over. The officers found a gun under the driver’s seat and Price was charged with possession of the weapon.

At trial Antoinette Phillips testified for the prosecution that shortly before the arrest she saw Price with a gun tucked in his waistband.

Despite his attorney’s best efforts to discredit Phillips, Price was convicted and he was sentenced to nearly eight years in prison on the gun charges..

After the trial his attorneys discovered that Phillips had a long criminal history including numerous incidents of moral turpitude, which would have placed doubt on her credibility if the incidents had been put before the jury.

Price’s attorney brought a motion for a new trial.. The district attorney testified at the hearing on the motion that he did not remember whether or not he received Phillips criminal history prior to trial. But the prosecutor has a duty not only to turn over exculpatory and impeaching evidence but to obtain such evidence from the police and any other organization involved in the arrest and conviction. The lead case in this are is Brady v. Maryland and the d=evidence is often call Brady evidence.

In any case the trial court refused to grant a new trial and the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals.

Unlike most attorneys who have a duty only to their client the prosecutor has a duty not only to his client (the government) but also to do justice. Therefore he/sher has a duty to learn of the existence of favorable evidence to the defense and to disclose such evidence. In United States v. Price The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor failed to live up to his/her duty by not providing the defense with the evidence of Phillips’ record and therefore preventing counsel from adequately cross examining Phillips.

Brady evidence must meet a three prong test. first it must be exculpatory or usable for impeachment. Second it must have been suppressed by the government, either intentionally or accidentally, and finally the failure to provide the evidence must be prejudicial. In this case all three prongs were met. It clearly could have been used to impeach Phillips. It was not provided to counsel and it was available to either the prosecutor or to the law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation. It was prejudicial because counsel would have used the evidence to impeach the leading prosecution witness.