I received an interesting idea from a misdemeanor prosecutor today. She wanted me to come up with a list of ten cases that every new prosecutor should read. Any thoughts? I suggest limiting yourself to one case per reply, and include why you think the case is important.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). I'm always surprised by how many people--both prosecutors and non-prosecutors--talk about Brady but have never actually read the case.

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) -- best discussion I can remember about the nature of, and limits to, the exclusionary rule.

Miranda. Most misquoted case around.

Donkey: What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!

Shrek: Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent. What you lack is the capacity.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JB,

TERRY V. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). In addition to the law this case created, Terry is a great example of how an officer's detailed facts can keep evidence admissible.

In an effort to show some love to our own court of last resort, and in line with Phil's nod to Terry v. Ohio, how about Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)? A lot of defense arguments about a lack of reasonable suspicion are really attempts to argue the "as consistent with innocent activity" standard that Woods got rid of.

Additionally, Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) because it really lays out what has to be shown for a 38.23 claim.

Vinson v. State, 252 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) for its Confrontation Clause analysis that incorporates both Crawford and Davis.

Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) for standards regarding admissibility of scientific evidence.

And Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) because it's so confusing you really have to read it.

But on the SCOTUS tip, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). I remember a Beaumont Court of Appeals opinion that urged practitioners to read Gates to understand just how much courts are supposed to defer to the magistrate issuing a warrant.

Bullcoming v New Mexico (564 U.S. __,131 S.Ct. 2705 [2011])

As much as for what it does NOT say as for what it does. The typical defense analysis misses any question of whether or not something is "testimonial."

My two cases to add to the list:

Kyles v. Whitley,514 U.S. 419 (1995). Although Brady is the first standard and it has historical significance, Brady does not address impeachment evidence and it does not address the prosecutor's imputed knowledge of what the police know. Kyles does. And Kyles has a really interesting fact pattern featuring a sleazebag informant named Beanie.

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993). When considering where to learn about absolute prosecutorial immunity, some people point to either Imbler v. Pachtman (the first absolute immunity case in the Supreme Court) or Kalina v. Fletcher (the last significant absolute immunity case in the Supreme Court to date). But I like Buckley the best because it has clarifies the limits of absolute immunity for investigative activity and media relations, and it has a fact pattern that is relevant to prosecutors today.