George Alvarez v. City of Brownsville, Texas

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.

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 nondisclosure policy was not the cause of the nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence and b) the nondisclosure 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.