1. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), this Court held that due process requires the government to disclose material exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant. In United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002), the Court held that due process does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence before entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant. The question presented is whether due process requires the government to disclose exculpatory evidence before entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.

2. Three essential elements must be established for a municipality to face §1983 liability. There must be: (1) a policy maker; (2) an official policy; and (3) a violation of a constitutional right whose "moving force" is the policy or custom. Monell v Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The Court of Appeals held a) that the City's existing non-disclosure policy was not the cause of the non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence and b) the non-disclosure policy was not promulgated with deliberate indifference because said policy was not a municipal requirement. The question presented is whether a ruling that no causation or deliberate indifference can be found where municipal actors "could have" hypothetically chosen not to follow City policy impermissibly elevates the § 1983 municipal liability causation and deliberate indifference standards.

Whether due process requires the government to disclose exculpatory evidence before entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant