PROTECTING RIGHTS BY REJECTING LAWSUITS: USING IMMUNITY TO PREVENT CIVIL LITIGATION FROM ERODING POLICE OBLIGATIONS UNDER BRADY V. MARYLAND.

The article discusses the use of immunity by a state officer to protect himself from civil litigation from violation consistent under the Brady versus (v.) Maryland. It discusses the extent of use of immunity and states that despite violating the Due Process Clause for hiding evidences, it offers chances to resolve conflict of circuits' decision and that state actor should be protected when they fail to do their duties in prosecutorial function. It says that immunity limits civil litigation of police error under Brady, but alternative liability is held for intentional concealment of evidences. It also mentions the Daniels v. Williams case, wherein Brady violation was allowed and rules of immunity by state officers was rejected due to carelessness and negligence.