Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)[1], was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." The court held that withholding evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given.

Brady material consists of exculpatory or impeaching information that is material to the guilt or punishment of the defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland,[1] in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process. Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution.

BRADY MATERIAL The prosecutor must disclose an agreement not to prosecute a witness in exchange for the witness's testimony.[2] The prosecutor must disclose leniency (or preferential treatment) agreements made with witnesses in exchange for testimony.[3] The prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence known only to the police. This imposes a duty on the prosecutor to review the police's investigatory files and disclose anything that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant.[4] The prosecutor must disclose arrest photographs of the defendant when those photos do not match the victim's description

Forensic photography resulted from the modernization of criminal justice systems and the power of photographic realism. French photographer, Alphonse Bertillon was the first to realize that photographs were futile for identification if they were not standardized by using the same lighting, scale and angles

Among the more famous, and arguably the most famous crime photographer, is Arthur Fellig, better known as "Weegee." He was known for routinely arriving at crime scenes before other reporters, or often even before the police, The nickname is speculated to come from an alternate spelling of the word "Ouija," implying that Fellig had a supernatural force telling where the action was going to occur. His first exhibition was a solo exhibition, entitled, "Weegee: Murder is My Business" and showed in 1941 at the Photo League in New York. The Museum of Modern Art purchased five of his photos and showed them in an exhibit called "Action Photography." Forensic photography had now transcended mere documentation. It was considered an art. Weegee did not consider his photos art, but many perceived them that way. He is a prime example of the different purposes of forensic photography. His photographs were intended as documentation and were viewed that way in the paper by many people, but were shown in museums and seen as art by many others. His first book was published in 1945 and was titled, Naked City