Commonsense Discovery Reform Is Under Attack: 8 Key Facts You Need to Know

The right to discovery legally requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense counsel. It is a necessary requirement to ensure that anyone accused of a crime has timely access to the evidence that may be used against them in court. 

Kalief Browder’s case highlights the critical importance of discovery laws and their timely enforcement.  Mr. Browder was just 16 years old when he was wrongfully accused of stealing a backpack in the Bronx, New York. He awaited trial for three years while incarcerated at Rikers Island because, in addition to his family’s inability to pay the $3,000 bail, he could not access the state’s evidence against him. This lack of access prevented Mr. Browder from effectively challenging the charges against him and securing his timely release. The emotional and psychological trauma he endured during his incarceration led to his tragic suicide in 2015 at the age of 22. 

Kalief’s Law, enacted in 2020, ensures that prosecutors are truly ready for trial when they say they are, meaning they must have already shared all the required evidence with the defense rather than springing it on the accused at the last moment. This law has been instrumental in promoting due process and transparency in New York’s criminal legal system by preventing wrongful convictions and unjust pretrial incarceration while also revealing patterns of police misconduct.

Across the country, discovery reform — like Kalief’s Law — has been crucial in preventing innocent people from being coerced into taking plea deals in the dark or wrongfully convicted because of withheld evidence. States like North Carolina, Texas, and Florida have set a precedent for fairness by adopting state-wide broad discovery policies, which require prosecutors to share all evidence or material — favorable or not — with the defense. These sensible policies ensure a more transparent and fair legal process, reducing wrongful convictions caused by withheld evidence. By eliminating prosecutorial discretion in evidence-sharing, these states have put the prosecution and the defense on equal footing, improved efficiency in case resolution, and increased public trust in the criminal legal system. Yet, other states, including New York, are facing proposals to roll back discovery reforms, threatening a retreat from truth and transparency. 

Here is what you need to know:

1. Withheld evidence is a leading factor of wrongful conviction 

Innocent people are spending years behind bars due to a broken discovery process. Of the 149 people who were exonerated in 2020, withheld evidence — either through negligence or misconduct  — was a factor in 58% of those cases, denying those accused of crimes a fair trial.

2. Fair discovery ensures the legal system’s transparency

Fair discovery acknowledges that justice is best served when both sides can argue their case with no withheld information. It requires that the prosecution share all evidence with the defense. The “blindfold law” system — where only the defense counsel, not prosecutors, is kept in the dark — runs counter to this principle, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and eroding public trust in the justice process.

Requiring the prosecution to disclose evidence isn’t a radical shift — it’s a commitment to transparency and a commonsense understanding of fair play. Under outdated laws, there was no requirement that undisclosed evidence be shared with the defense. Fair discovery ensures that all relevant information is accessible, preventing innocent people from being convicted due to withheld evidence.

3. Broad discovery laws protect both sides and prevent coerced pleas

It is a fundamental right that every person accused of a crime has a right to build and present a strong defense. To do so, they need reliable access to evidence. When a state has overly restrictive discovery laws, it puts an unfair burden on the accused persons, forcing their attorneys to rely on guesswork and often unreliable methods to gather information. This can leave them without the tools needed to properly investigate a case. Moreover, their lawyers are prevented from being able to provide fully informed advice on the strength of the case. 

Countless innocent people have been coerced by the prosecution to plead guilty as a result. In fact, withheld evidence played a role in the exonerations of 444 people who took plea bargains. No one should be forced to trade their liberty without knowing the actual extent of the evidence being held back by the prosecution. 

4. The real cost of poor discovery laws 

Felipe Rodriguez spent nearly 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because the prosecution withheld evidence that an informant lied to police. The New York judge who granted a defense motion to vacate his conviction,  Joseph Zayas, recently testified about the necessity of strong discovery laws in his current role as a chief administrative judge. 

Renay Lynch was sentenced to 25 years to life for the 1995 murder of her landlord, but it was discovered that police hid 13 fingerprints from the crime scene. When the withheld fingerprints were finally revealed in 2020, nine matched a tenant with a manslaughter conviction — none matched Ms. Lynch. After 24 years in prison, she was released on parole in 2022 and exonerated in 2024. 

These cases show that restricting access to evidence has a real human toll and is a direct threat to justice.

5. The Michael Morton Act is a model discovery reform in Texas

Texas implemented the Michael Morton Act in 2013 after the exoneration of Mr. Morton who was wrongfully convicted of murder due to withheld evidence. This law requires open-file discovery, ensuring that defense attorneys have full access to the prosecution’s evidence. It has significantly increased transparency in Texas courts.

Due to this reform, Stanley Mozee and Dennis Allen were exonerated after being wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Both men had been incarcerated for 15 years until a Dallas County district court released them in 2014 following a re-investigation that turned up substantial additional evidence proving the two men’s innocence. Much of that evidence was in the trial prosecutor’s own files but was hidden from the defense until the district attorney’s office adopted an “open file” policy years after Mr. Mozee and Mr. Allen’s trials.

6. Zero Wrongful Convictions in New York Since Discovery Reform

Since 1989, there have been more than 300 exonerations in New York, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. After enacting broad discovery reforms in 2020, the state has not recorded a single wrongful conviction that was later overturned by withheld exculpatory evidence— clear proof that transparency prevents injustice. Repealing these reforms would reverse this progress and risk more innocent people being convicted.

7. Rolling Back Discovery Makes Us All Less Safe 

Proposed rollbacks to New York’s discovery law would be a retreat from transparency and fairness. Allowing prosecutors to unilaterally decide when and what evidence to disclose would return us to the failed “blindfold law” system — one that has already contributed to hundreds of wrongful convictions. Instead of dismantling reforms, states should look to successful models like Texas, Florida, and North Carolina to strengthen their commitment to justice.

8. Criminal cases should have the same discovery standards as civil cases

Nearly 90 years ago, in 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to include Rule 26 and establish an incredibly expansive and broad pretrial discovery practice. The same principles of fairness and accessibility that led to reform in civil cases are just as crucial in criminal cases, where the stakes are even higher.

The discovery process in criminal cases, where liberty or even life is on the line, is far more restrictive and burdensome than in civil cases, which are typically about money. This is despite the fact that early, open, and automatic discovery has been the standard in civil cases for almost a century. This disparity in how discovery is handled raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency within our justice system.

Fair discovery laws are not a burden; they are a necessity for a fair legal system. They protect the innocent, hold prosecutors accountable, and ensure that convictions are based on the full truth. Legislators must reject attempts to weaken discovery laws and instead commit to a justice system where truth prevails.