What do you think?
Rate this book
When Innocence Is Not Enough: Hidden Evidence and the Failed Promise of the Brady Rule
A gripping work of narrative nonfiction, told across time, that exposes what’s at stake when prosecutors conceal evidence—and what we can do about it
The Brady rule was meant to transform the U.S. justice system. In soaring language, the Supreme Court decreed in 1963 that prosecutors must share favorable evidence with the defense—part of a suite of decisions of that reform-minded era designed to promote fairness for those accused of crimes. But reality intervened. The opinion faced many challenges, ranging from poor legal reasoning and shaky precedent to its clashes with the very foundations of the American criminal legal system and some of its most powerful prosecutors. In this beautifully wrought work of narrative nonfiction, Thomas L. Dybdahl illustrates the promise and shortcomings of the Brady rule through deft storytelling and attention to crucial cases, including the infamous 1984 murder of Catherine Fuller in Washington, DC. This case led to eight young Black men being sent to prison for life after the prosecutor, afraid of losing the biggest case of his career, hid information that would have proven their innocence. With a seasoned defense lawyer’s unsparing eye for detail, Thomas L. Dybdahl chronicles the evolution of the Brady rule—from its unexpected birth to the series of legal decisions that left it defanged and ineffective. Yet Dybdahl shows us a path forward by highlighting promising reform efforts across the country that offer a blueprint for a legislative revival of Brady ’s true spirit.
The Brady rule was meant to transform the U.S. justice system. In soaring language, the Supreme Court decreed in 1963 that prosecutors must share favorable evidence with the defense—part of a suite of decisions of that reform-minded era designed to promote fairness for those accused of crimes. But reality intervened. The opinion faced many challenges, ranging from poor legal reasoning and shaky precedent to its clashes with the very foundations of the American criminal legal system and some of its most powerful prosecutors. In this beautifully wrought work of narrative nonfiction, Thomas L. Dybdahl illustrates the promise and shortcomings of the Brady rule through deft storytelling and attention to crucial cases, including the infamous 1984 murder of Catherine Fuller in Washington, DC. This case led to eight young Black men being sent to prison for life after the prosecutor, afraid of losing the biggest case of his career, hid information that would have proven their innocence. With a seasoned defense lawyer’s unsparing eye for detail, Thomas L. Dybdahl chronicles the evolution of the Brady rule—from its unexpected birth to the series of legal decisions that left it defanged and ineffective. Yet Dybdahl shows us a path forward by highlighting promising reform efforts across the country that offer a blueprint for a legislative revival of Brady ’s true spirit.
288 pages, Hardcover
Published January 31, 2023
12 people are currently reading
1735 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 21, 2022
Compelling Arguments Need Better Documentation. This is another of those nonfiction tales that uses a singular case as its overall narrative structure, but also looks to several other cases and events related to the overall thesis of the text. The overarching case is a brutal murder out of 1980s Washington DC where several black kids where wrongfully convicted of a murder they could not have committed, and where police and prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence that resulted in these kids spending decades behind bars. Dybdahl then expands out to show that while this case was particularly egregious, it is also far from uncommon. Indeed, it is almost banal in just how common the abuses at hand truly are, causing one (later disgraced for unrelated reasons) judge to even call it an "epidemic" within the last decade prior to publication of this book!
The problems here are related yet distinct enough to my mind to warrant a two star deduction. The first star is lost due to the small bibliography, something that could potentially be corrected prior to actual publication of this book roughly three months after I sit to write this review of this advanced reader copy. Coming in at just about 15% of the overall text, this is short of the 20% - 33% that is more normal for works such as this one, and well short of the 40% - 50% that I *prefer* to see in such texts.
The second star is lost specifically because the claims herein are not as well documented as they need to be to make these points something that opponents cannot simply dismiss.
Make no mistake - I actually have been following this general issue (though not the specific cases at hand) for quite some time and nearly completely agree with the author's points and recommendations. But as the author points out often, there is quite considerable opposition to these ideas in the minds and actions of the very people who could most correct these injustices - and the only way to really be able to attempt to convince such opposition of our correctness is to more fully document our case. Thus, I always appreciate books such as this one - I simply need it to be much more documented. Still, for the ideas it presents and how it actually presents them, this is still a book that needs to be read by every American. Thus, it is very much recommended.
The problems here are related yet distinct enough to my mind to warrant a two star deduction. The first star is lost due to the small bibliography, something that could potentially be corrected prior to actual publication of this book roughly three months after I sit to write this review of this advanced reader copy. Coming in at just about 15% of the overall text, this is short of the 20% - 33% that is more normal for works such as this one, and well short of the 40% - 50% that I *prefer* to see in such texts.
The second star is lost specifically because the claims herein are not as well documented as they need to be to make these points something that opponents cannot simply dismiss.
Make no mistake - I actually have been following this general issue (though not the specific cases at hand) for quite some time and nearly completely agree with the author's points and recommendations. But as the author points out often, there is quite considerable opposition to these ideas in the minds and actions of the very people who could most correct these injustices - and the only way to really be able to attempt to convince such opposition of our correctness is to more fully document our case. Thus, I always appreciate books such as this one - I simply need it to be much more documented. Still, for the ideas it presents and how it actually presents them, this is still a book that needs to be read by every American. Thus, it is very much recommended.
July 21, 2024
When Innocence Is Not Enough explores the Brady Rule established by a Supreme Court Decision in 1963, which says that in a criminal case, the prosecution must share evidence with the defense that is favorable to their client. The rule was meant to encourage fair play by protecting defendants' rights and ensuring that justice was the State's goal-- rather than winning. We are not living up to that ideal in reality. In the last thirty years, 44% of exonerations followed Brady violations. Key evidence was withheld that could have helped the defendants' cases.
First, the author tells the details of the Brady case and its unlikely rise to the Supreme Court. Then he traces impactful changes to the rule's efficacy while weaving through the details of a specific case to show the impact of the Brady rule on a human level. So let's talk legal precedent first and then get into his (literal) case study.
The initial Brady decision did not sail forward uncontested. The author shares how its interpretation has shifted with the Supreme Court's membership, increasingly narrow in its application and with more convoluted definitions. In the Youngblood v. Arizona decision, the Supreme Court considered an expansion of Brady that would have included the State's need to appropriately preserve (physical) evidence that could be favorable to the defense down the road. The Supreme Court decided it's only a Brady violation if the police act in bad faith, and negligence is not a concern for a fair process. Basically, they didn't want the police to be "burdened" by having to care for all evidence to that degree. In the Bagley case, they ruled that evidence need only be shared with the defense if it has a "reasonable probability" of swaying the outcome of the trial in the defendant's favor. With this approach, the prosecutor decides if the Brady Rule applies before sharing anything. By its very nature, the lack of oversight requires implicit trust in a prosecutor's judgment because there's no way to know if they have information they aren't sharing.
These decisions not only favor the prosecution in the original trial but also make it harder for a defendant to appeal using Brady if they are made aware of suppressed evidence after the fact-- they have to prove not just that evidence was withheld but that it had a "reasonable probability" of changing the outcome way back when the original trial occurred, a purely subjective determination. Even when courts go through the motions of hearing a Brady appeal, there's rarely any consequence. A prosecutor may be told they erred, but not with any expectation of punishment. And a defendant may be told that evidence was withheld, but it wouldn't have impacted their case. Therefore, the result stands. This reality factors into a prosecutor's mental calculus, and they may do the work of a judge beforehand, anticipating a favorable outcome to justify not sharing evidence.
To illustrate how our legal system is beleaguered by the false promise of Brady, Dybdahl tells of a 1984 murder in Washington, D.C. where the homicide detectives made some assumptions early on that shaped their approach to the case. For one, they distrusted the Black community where the murder happened and felt they were withholding information to protect one of their own... rather than considering that no one in the community knew anything to share. Second, they were convinced a gang was responsible. A moniker of a go-go crew that went to concerts together was assumed to be that of a vicious group terrorizing the neighborhood. Many young men were pulled in and charged as members of the supposed gang, and detectives put pressure on them to confirm the narrative they wanted to hear and name more names. Young people are more likely to falsely confess under coercive interrogation. Some states have put legal protections in place that police can't lie to teenagers to get them to confess, but it's not common practice and it certainly wasn't in the 80s when the crime in question occurred. All of this snowballed into a case where everything shared in court pointed to this one version of events, the only defense a blanket denial.
When evidence was found to the contrary, it was ignored by the detectives and prosecutor by virtue of the fact it didn't fit the story they'd already committed to. That, along with a fierce desire to win such a high-profile case, encouraged the prosecutor not to share any such evidence with the defense under the Brady rule. The defendants were left with "only" their alibis as defense, something juries are likely to mistrust. Most ended up convicted for the brutal murder, and it took over a decade for a journalist to start digging into any alternative theories. Thus started a lengthy appeal process that went all the way to The Supreme Court. Don't get your hopes up.
The author doesn't leave us with this bleak picture alone. He considers where changes are being made and what more needs to be done to protect defendants' rights where the Brady Rule has failed. Dybdahl notes that federal judges skew towards former prosecutors, and this trend is likely to be similar in lower courts. With the Brady rule defined so loosely, it gives space for judges to decide by some internal mechanism what's right. Their political leanings, previous experiences, etc. will have a vast impact because there's space for it. Because of this, the author argues the current system is not the solution because judges and prosecutors are content. External pressures will be needed to bring about change. He shares where legislative steps have been taken, particularly in the states of Texas and North Carolina. The goal is open-file discovery, meaning everything is shared with the defense before trial and even before plea bargaining. That takes the power out of prosecutors' hands to decide what could be beneficial or damaging to their own ends. It should result in the outcome intended by Brady of transparency and less competitive mistrust between prosecution and defense attorneys.
Though true crime is an aspect of this book in a way, it isn't about shock and awe in the typical sense. The horror comes from the legal history of it all-- how many innocent people have suffered and continue to do so at the hands of our judicial system. This is an area where I think I need to continue to educate myself and find out the rules in my state, but this was a valuable first step. The author's writing is clear, making a snarled situation into something approachable and impactful for his readers. Thank you to The New Press for my copy to read and review!
First, the author tells the details of the Brady case and its unlikely rise to the Supreme Court. Then he traces impactful changes to the rule's efficacy while weaving through the details of a specific case to show the impact of the Brady rule on a human level. So let's talk legal precedent first and then get into his (literal) case study.
The initial Brady decision did not sail forward uncontested. The author shares how its interpretation has shifted with the Supreme Court's membership, increasingly narrow in its application and with more convoluted definitions. In the Youngblood v. Arizona decision, the Supreme Court considered an expansion of Brady that would have included the State's need to appropriately preserve (physical) evidence that could be favorable to the defense down the road. The Supreme Court decided it's only a Brady violation if the police act in bad faith, and negligence is not a concern for a fair process. Basically, they didn't want the police to be "burdened" by having to care for all evidence to that degree. In the Bagley case, they ruled that evidence need only be shared with the defense if it has a "reasonable probability" of swaying the outcome of the trial in the defendant's favor. With this approach, the prosecutor decides if the Brady Rule applies before sharing anything. By its very nature, the lack of oversight requires implicit trust in a prosecutor's judgment because there's no way to know if they have information they aren't sharing.
These decisions not only favor the prosecution in the original trial but also make it harder for a defendant to appeal using Brady if they are made aware of suppressed evidence after the fact-- they have to prove not just that evidence was withheld but that it had a "reasonable probability" of changing the outcome way back when the original trial occurred, a purely subjective determination. Even when courts go through the motions of hearing a Brady appeal, there's rarely any consequence. A prosecutor may be told they erred, but not with any expectation of punishment. And a defendant may be told that evidence was withheld, but it wouldn't have impacted their case. Therefore, the result stands. This reality factors into a prosecutor's mental calculus, and they may do the work of a judge beforehand, anticipating a favorable outcome to justify not sharing evidence.
To illustrate how our legal system is beleaguered by the false promise of Brady, Dybdahl tells of a 1984 murder in Washington, D.C. where the homicide detectives made some assumptions early on that shaped their approach to the case. For one, they distrusted the Black community where the murder happened and felt they were withholding information to protect one of their own... rather than considering that no one in the community knew anything to share. Second, they were convinced a gang was responsible. A moniker of a go-go crew that went to concerts together was assumed to be that of a vicious group terrorizing the neighborhood. Many young men were pulled in and charged as members of the supposed gang, and detectives put pressure on them to confirm the narrative they wanted to hear and name more names. Young people are more likely to falsely confess under coercive interrogation. Some states have put legal protections in place that police can't lie to teenagers to get them to confess, but it's not common practice and it certainly wasn't in the 80s when the crime in question occurred. All of this snowballed into a case where everything shared in court pointed to this one version of events, the only defense a blanket denial.
When evidence was found to the contrary, it was ignored by the detectives and prosecutor by virtue of the fact it didn't fit the story they'd already committed to. That, along with a fierce desire to win such a high-profile case, encouraged the prosecutor not to share any such evidence with the defense under the Brady rule. The defendants were left with "only" their alibis as defense, something juries are likely to mistrust. Most ended up convicted for the brutal murder, and it took over a decade for a journalist to start digging into any alternative theories. Thus started a lengthy appeal process that went all the way to The Supreme Court. Don't get your hopes up.
The author doesn't leave us with this bleak picture alone. He considers where changes are being made and what more needs to be done to protect defendants' rights where the Brady Rule has failed. Dybdahl notes that federal judges skew towards former prosecutors, and this trend is likely to be similar in lower courts. With the Brady rule defined so loosely, it gives space for judges to decide by some internal mechanism what's right. Their political leanings, previous experiences, etc. will have a vast impact because there's space for it. Because of this, the author argues the current system is not the solution because judges and prosecutors are content. External pressures will be needed to bring about change. He shares where legislative steps have been taken, particularly in the states of Texas and North Carolina. The goal is open-file discovery, meaning everything is shared with the defense before trial and even before plea bargaining. That takes the power out of prosecutors' hands to decide what could be beneficial or damaging to their own ends. It should result in the outcome intended by Brady of transparency and less competitive mistrust between prosecution and defense attorneys.
Though true crime is an aspect of this book in a way, it isn't about shock and awe in the typical sense. The horror comes from the legal history of it all-- how many innocent people have suffered and continue to do so at the hands of our judicial system. This is an area where I think I need to continue to educate myself and find out the rules in my state, but this was a valuable first step. The author's writing is clear, making a snarled situation into something approachable and impactful for his readers. Thank you to The New Press for my copy to read and review!
March 31, 2023
This is an important book, and its publication could not be more timely. We are more and more frequently confronted with injustice perpetuated by the very systems that promise to liberate us from it. In this book, Dybdahl illustrates the development and consequences of the infamous Brady disclosure, leading us through a series of significant Supreme Court decisions, punctuated by the development and ‘conclusion’ of the murder trial of Catherine Fuller. Being unfamiliar with this trial, I did not know any of the details, but I wasn’t surprised about the outcome—especially after realizing that it is a mess of Brady violations. Dybdahl’s book is aimed at a concerned yet public audience, so it doesn’t carry the same heft of an academic book on the subject, but it does whet the appetite enough for the interested reader to explore these issues further.
I greatly appreciated Dybdahl’s concise and clear writing style. Even when he is discussing these complex legal issues, you can glean his compassion and sense of justice for the individual(s) at the center of it all. Ultimately, we are talking about legal theory, but he reminds us to not forget how these concepts and rulings have very real consequences on the lives of those involved, whether rightly or wrongly. The book is of course biased in the sense of making a fairly binary argument—that Brady violations are a problem we must contend with—though the author does take care to address and refute the arguments of those who disagree. He could have given these a more detailed treatment, but at the very least, his own arguments are quite clear and well articulated.
The structure of the book alternates telling you sequences in the Fuller trial and consequent aftermath with steps in the progression of Supreme and appellate Court cases related to Brady and its interpretation. This with an extremely useful resource in getting, at a glance, a list of the most relevant cases for the subject matter so that I could look into them further on my own time. As a primer, which is what this book is, you can't get much better than that. A more detailed list of cases or case history would have been a useful appendix, though.
Overall, Dybdahl’s passion and enthusiasm for the subject matter make this book a rather compelling one for those interested in criminal justice reform and prosecutorial reform. Could it have been a bit less repetitive and more detailed? Yes, but that is always the case. Something of this length and aimed at a general audience will no doubt leave a reader wanting more. Yet, it occupies a space in which it is hard to find other books -- if there are similar books you know of, please do let me know.
I greatly appreciated Dybdahl’s concise and clear writing style. Even when he is discussing these complex legal issues, you can glean his compassion and sense of justice for the individual(s) at the center of it all. Ultimately, we are talking about legal theory, but he reminds us to not forget how these concepts and rulings have very real consequences on the lives of those involved, whether rightly or wrongly. The book is of course biased in the sense of making a fairly binary argument—that Brady violations are a problem we must contend with—though the author does take care to address and refute the arguments of those who disagree. He could have given these a more detailed treatment, but at the very least, his own arguments are quite clear and well articulated.
The structure of the book alternates telling you sequences in the Fuller trial and consequent aftermath with steps in the progression of Supreme and appellate Court cases related to Brady and its interpretation. This with an extremely useful resource in getting, at a glance, a list of the most relevant cases for the subject matter so that I could look into them further on my own time. As a primer, which is what this book is, you can't get much better than that. A more detailed list of cases or case history would have been a useful appendix, though.
Overall, Dybdahl’s passion and enthusiasm for the subject matter make this book a rather compelling one for those interested in criminal justice reform and prosecutorial reform. Could it have been a bit less repetitive and more detailed? Yes, but that is always the case. Something of this length and aimed at a general audience will no doubt leave a reader wanting more. Yet, it occupies a space in which it is hard to find other books -- if there are similar books you know of, please do let me know.
January 12, 2025
This book was a thorough historical and current view of the Brady rule and how it should but often doesn’t get upheld in criminal court cases. If you’re not familiar, according to the Legal Information Institute, “The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense.” In layman’s terms, the prosecutors are not allowed to hide evidence that would help the defendant’s case or lessen their punishment, they’re obligated to share it. A question I, personally, had never considered before- are they actually following this rule? This book examines exactly that question, walking us through several cases to show how Brady can be broken, and the consequences of those actions, particularly on those who do not receive justice because of it.
I genuinely appreciated the way this book walks through historical cases, but also brings it into the modern light with the changes, holdbacks, and consequences even into the 2020s. There is a light at the end of the tunnel and instrumental change happening every day.
Dybdahl was an excellent candidate to undertake this type of in-depth review of Brady. Having a background in journalism and 13 years of experience as a public defender gives him a unique perspective as to the real-life consequences of Brady and how it functions today.
Throughout the text we see not only case files, lives of the accused, but many studies done by others who give concrete impactful data to each of the topics explored.
As someone who studies politics and government, I was familiar with the Brady rule but this was the first piece I’ve come across that not only explains it so thoroughly, but truly deals with the ramifications of the past, and brings in the hopeful updates of today. Multiple times throughout my reading I would see the statistics of false confessions, how the justice system impacts minors and young people, and how often people of color are more severely wronged by Brady infractions. It was so insightful and heartbreaking to see how not only the wrongly accused, by the victims could be impacted for life by these situations.
As people with access to so much information, we must stay vigilant to know our rights and to demand instrumental change from our lawmakers. This is a bipartisan issue that affects us all.
I genuinely appreciated the way this book walks through historical cases, but also brings it into the modern light with the changes, holdbacks, and consequences even into the 2020s. There is a light at the end of the tunnel and instrumental change happening every day.
Dybdahl was an excellent candidate to undertake this type of in-depth review of Brady. Having a background in journalism and 13 years of experience as a public defender gives him a unique perspective as to the real-life consequences of Brady and how it functions today.
Throughout the text we see not only case files, lives of the accused, but many studies done by others who give concrete impactful data to each of the topics explored.
As someone who studies politics and government, I was familiar with the Brady rule but this was the first piece I’ve come across that not only explains it so thoroughly, but truly deals with the ramifications of the past, and brings in the hopeful updates of today. Multiple times throughout my reading I would see the statistics of false confessions, how the justice system impacts minors and young people, and how often people of color are more severely wronged by Brady infractions. It was so insightful and heartbreaking to see how not only the wrongly accused, by the victims could be impacted for life by these situations.
As people with access to so much information, we must stay vigilant to know our rights and to demand instrumental change from our lawmakers. This is a bipartisan issue that affects us all.
November 8, 2022
When Innocence is Note Enough tells two narratives. It details the Catherine Fuller murder case in DC in the 1980s and how police were so committed to a narrative that they ignored evidence and convicted multiple innocent people. Simultaneously, the book walks through the creation of Brady and how courts have slowly limited its power, resulting in more wrongful convictions. Dybdahl shows that a few groups are trying to preserve Brady's power and reforms could succeed in ensuring justice is more fair.
The book was an enlightening read on Brady and its limits. The Catherine Fuller case did not focus on Brady until the end of the narrative, since the prosecution needed to withhold information first, but it works well as an informative narrative about how police and prosecutors can trap themselves into a story and ignore evidence leading them to the truth. I had never heard of the case (I now know that some people know it from The Confession Tapes on Netflix) but it was such a clear miscarriage of justice to try to rope so many young people into the criminal justice system with little evidence against any of them. The courts are so committed to uphold the institutions of the prosecutors office and the adversarial system that they are less concerned with innocent people crushed under their weight. While in some parts the book felt somewhat surface level, it covered a lot of history of criminal procedure concisely and gave clear avenues for further research and resources. But for someone wanting to get oriented in this area of the law or wanting to learn more about injustices in the criminal justice system, the book will be a good choice.
The book was an enlightening read on Brady and its limits. The Catherine Fuller case did not focus on Brady until the end of the narrative, since the prosecution needed to withhold information first, but it works well as an informative narrative about how police and prosecutors can trap themselves into a story and ignore evidence leading them to the truth. I had never heard of the case (I now know that some people know it from The Confession Tapes on Netflix) but it was such a clear miscarriage of justice to try to rope so many young people into the criminal justice system with little evidence against any of them. The courts are so committed to uphold the institutions of the prosecutors office and the adversarial system that they are less concerned with innocent people crushed under their weight. While in some parts the book felt somewhat surface level, it covered a lot of history of criminal procedure concisely and gave clear avenues for further research and resources. But for someone wanting to get oriented in this area of the law or wanting to learn more about injustices in the criminal justice system, the book will be a good choice.
December 31, 2022
When Innocence is Not Enough tells the history of the Brady rule while zooming in on an egregious violation in the Catherine Fuller murder case and making the case for open file disclosure. I requested this ARC because with the recent Adnan Syed conviction reversal, I’ve become more interested in the wrongful conviction genre of true crime. Thomas L. Dybdahl goes through many case examples, with both positive and negative outcomes for the accused, showing that often the courts prioritize finality over justice. This book is a good jumping off point for those interested in wrongful convictions. I was googling names while reading to get more information about cases, entire books could probably be written about each of them. The author does a good job of balancing the devastating stories of wrongful conviction with ideas for how the justice system could be improved beyond Brady.
Thanks to the New Press and NetGalley for the eARC in exchange for an honest review.
Thanks to the New Press and NetGalley for the eARC in exchange for an honest review.
October 25, 2023
What a fantastic compilation of a serious flaw within the justice system. I marveled at Dybdahl's ability to weave heart-breaking stories of prosecutorial misconduct with real, tangible legal decisions and legislature that has led to the problem we see today. This book is a wealth of information—from organizations to individuals, Dybdahl highlights the incredible work being done around the country in support of reform. Definitely recommend for anyone curious about how broken our justice system is, but most specifically for those who cannot stomach the likes of Solitary and Just Mercy. This book goes way less into the trauma of the incarcerated, while still devastating, there's less exposure to the more painful details.
August 29, 2023
This is an interesting book on the Brady Rule. It covers the birth of the rule & how it was designed to ensure due process. With the Brady Rule, prosectors cannot suppress evidence from the defense. Unfortunately, the system does not always work in the best interest of the defendant. In the book, the author covers cases were the Brady Rule was used erroneous by prosectors. This book shedded some light on fraudulent practices that are used by defectives. It was eye-opening yet sad.
February 12, 2023
I knew the case and story but the book was written do well. Enjoyable read. Highly recommend.
May 8, 2023
A 4.5. Compellingly written, but a tad preachy. A worthwhile read if one is even remotely interested in this aspect of the criminal justice system.
June 10, 2023
Interesting but depressing to know that innocence is NOT enough to overturn a conviction
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews