October Term 2016 · Docket 15-1503

Does a Brady violation require a new trial when the evidence of guilt is strong?

the sides that brought the case seek new trials after prosecutors withheld evidence. The government argues the convictions stand despite the omission.

Official caption
Turner v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Williams argued the prosecution clearly violated Brady principles.

    Mr. Dreeben asserted the evidence of a group attack was strong and corroborated.

    Ms. Rice noted the jury repeatedly deadlocked before returning a conviction.

    Justice Alito questioned the consistency of the alternative perpetrator theory with trial defenses.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case involves two men convicted of a group attack. Prosecutors withheld evidence that could have supported an alternative perpetrator theory. the sides that brought the case claim this omission violated their right to a fair trial. The government argues the remaining evidence was strong enough to sustain the verdicts.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 29, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want new trials because the withheld evidence could have changed the jury's decision.

The government wants the convictions to stand because the evidence of guilt was strong and corroborated.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the prosecution violated Brady by withholding material, favorable information.

The government argues the evidence of a group attack was strong and corroborated by multiple sources.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked how a complete fabrication without motive fits the defense theory.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the withheld evidence would have led to introducing a later crime.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the threshold for materiality in Brady violations. It determines when withheld evidence requires a new trial. The outcome affects the reliability of criminal convictions nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON