Which statement is not a remedy for a Brady violation involving exculpatory evidence?

Which statement is not a remedy for a Brady violation involving exculpatory evidence?

• A. Recall the witness for cross-examination
• B. Strike the witness's testimony
• C. Dismiss the case
• D. All of the above are remedies

Answer: (C)

Brady violations are corrected by remedies that restore the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial, focusing on the exculpatory evidence that should have been disclosed. Recall the witness for cross-examination to test the credibility and consistency of the testimony that the state kept hidden. Strike the witness’s testimony to remove tainted statements from the record. In many cases, if the trial was seriously undermined, a new trial may be ordered to allow the defense a proper chance to contest the evidence. Dismissing the case ends the prosecution rather than curing the specific prejudice caused by the nondisclosure, so it is not a standard Brady remedy. Therefore, dismissal is not a remedy for a Brady violation involving exculpatory evidence.

Brady violations are corrected by remedies that restore the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial, focusing on the exculpatory evidence that should have been disclosed. Recall the witness for cross-examination to test the credibility and consistency of the testimony that the state kept hidden. Strike the witness’s testimony to remove tainted statements from the record. In many cases, if the trial was seriously undermined, a new trial may be ordered to allow the defense a proper chance to contest the evidence. Dismissing the case ends the prosecution rather than curing the specific prejudice caused by the nondisclosure, so it is not a standard Brady remedy. Therefore, dismissal is not a remedy for a Brady violation involving exculpatory evidence.