In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that withholding exculpatory evidence from a defendant violates due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The case involved two men, John L. Brady and Charles Boblit, who were convicted for murder during an armed robbery in 1958. Both defendants had confessed to participating in the crime but each accused the other of committing the actual act of murder - a fact significant because it could influence sentencing outcomes (the death penalty was at stake). Prior to trial, prosecutors withheld a statement by Boblit admitting he did indeed commit homicide; this information was not disclosed until after both men were sentenced to death following their convictions. The Supreme Court held that suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where such evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irrespective of good faith or bad faith reasons for nondisclosure on part of prosecution team. This landmark decision led to what's now known as "Brady disclosure," requiring prosecutors disclose materially exculpatory evidence in their possession to defense teams prior trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Brady v. Maryland, it was argued that the majority's decision to require prosecutors to share all exculpatory evidence with defendants could potentially disrupt the adversarial system of criminal justice in America. The dissenters believed that this new rule would place an undue burden on prosecutors and might lead them to err on the side of disclosing too much information, out of fear of having convictions overturned due to non-disclosure. They also expressed concern about how this requirement would be enforced and what standards courts should use when determining whether a piece of evidence is material or not. Furthermore, they questioned whether such a rule was necessary given existing professional conduct rules requiring fairness from prosecutors.