now theres a notice of brady evidence is that good for her or not
First and foremost, it is worth repeating that the accuser or alleged victim does not drop charges, rather the State Attorney's Office makes the decision to bring or drop charges. In theory, the State Attorney's Office could continue to go forward without the victim or accuser, but this would make their situation far more difficult generally.
The Notice of Brady Evidence is generally a good thing. It means the State Attorney's Office is notifying you of evidence that is exculpatory or impeaching and material to the case. This type of evidence would generally strengthen her defense. It could be notice from the prosecutor concerning the alleged victim coming to them wanting the charges dropped.
I recommend you contact a criminal defense attorney immediately, so that they may continue to work with the State Attorney's Office as soon as possible to try and get the charges resolved.
This answer does not, nor is it intended to, create an attorney-client relationship or constitute attorney advertising. Rather, it is offered solely for informational purposes. The facts of each case are different and unique, it is critical to consult with qualified counsel with whom information can be shared and assessed under attorney-client privilege, so that competent and quality advice can be obtained on which you can make informed decisions
Criminal Defense Attorney
As counsel has already pointed out in his response, which I agree, it is up to the prosecutor as to whether or not to prosecute the case, not the accuser.
The "Brady" evidence refers to a U.S. Supreme Court case holding:
Brady v. Maryland
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18–19, 1963
Decided May 13, 1963
Full case name Brady v. State of Maryland
Citations 373 U.S. 83 (more)
83 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215; 1963 U. S. LEXIS 1615
Prior history Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland
Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. "
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Majority Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, Goldberg
Dissent Harlan, joined by Black
U. S. Const. amend. XIV
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark 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.
Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment.
The Court's Decision
The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory 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. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling was affirmed.
A defendant's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.” Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution's witnesses, and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.
I am trying to give you a general answer to your question. We do not have an attorney-client relationship by this response on the avvo website. I have not been retained to represent you. I am licensed to practice law in Kentucky and in federal court in this state and the Southern District of Indiana. You need to seek legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your area..
Criminal Defense Attorney
As my learned colleagues have pointed out in detail, once a case is in the hands of the prosecutor, the decision to proceed or not lies with the prosecutor. Brady has to do with providing all relevant information to the defense. I do not see how that applies here. Your girlfriend needs a defense attorney, and you can pay for one. Her attorney can work through the details with the prosecutor, show that the primary witness has recanted, and seek dismissal. There may be something more to all of this.
We do not have a client/attorney relationship until you make an appointment, we discuss your case face to face, I accept a retainer, and we explictly agree to enter into representation.
I think you have posted the same question twice.