Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump’s four criminal cases are knee-deep in producing millions of pages of discovery to ensure he receives a fair trial. The discovery process is not simply a lot of work. It is a land mine for prosecutors—one that has sunk other high-profile cases, such as the 2008 prosecution of then-Sen. Ted Stevens. In the Trump case, the prospects of a discovery error—particularly an accidental one—are significant, and prosecutors must be careful to prevent their cases from imploding on a national stage with some of the highest stakes imaginable.

For 60 years, the Supreme Court’s Bradydoctrine has required prosecutors to turn over all evidence to a defendant that is favorable and material. In many cases, the Bradydisclosures are straightforward. In a murder case, for example, favorable evidence might be an eyewitness pointing to someone else as the possible shooter. Favorable evidence also includes anything that would discredit a prosecution witness, such as expressions of bias or prior inconsistent statements.

To demonstrate a Bradyviolation, the defendant needs to show that the withheld evidence was material. If a defendant raises the Bradyclaim midtrial, the defendant must show that the withheld evidence would lead to an acquittal. If the defendant raises the Bradyclaim after trial, he also has the burden of showing that he would have been found not guilty if the evidence had been disclosed. Materiality can be an obstacle to defendants winning Bradyappeals, but in a complicated factual case like the ones involving Trump, the materiality standard can be easier to meet. In the Trump cases, prosecutors are stitching together a narrative with the testimony of many witnesses who each contribute small but key pieces of the puzzle. If evidence that is withheld would have undermined any one of those puzzle pieces—for example by contradicting a key witness—that may be enough.

So how do the Trump prosecutors avoid committing a Bradyviolation? Well, the first step is to know the types of circumstances in which they happen.

Prosecutors commit Bradyviolations in three common situations: First, some prosecutors intentionally hide evidence. Second, prosecutors commit Bradyviolations because they don’t understand the law and inadvertently fail to disclose required evidence. Third, prosecutors fail to turn over evidence held by other members of the “prosecution team,” such as police officers who work outside the prosecutor’s office.

The first two scenarios seem unlikely in the Trump cases. The whole world is watching, so it would be absurd for special counsel Jack Smith and the other prosecutors to intentionally hide evidence. And it seems doubtful that these prosecutors, knowing the stakes, would make a legal mistake about their discovery obligations, rather than simply erring on the side of disclosure.

Related From Slate

Mark Joseph Stern

The Surprise Ruling That Tosses a Grenade Into the Jan. 6 Prosecutions