Aren’t prosecutors required to follow Brady without a specific ruling? Not that they do...but aren’t they supposed to share all evidence with the defense?
Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.
While I am not a lawyer, I have carefully watched My Cousin Vinnie several times and I believe you are correct.
Yes, it is required. I believe this is what happened and why Sullivan leaves no doubt. When Sullivan assigned a special prosecutor after the Ted Stevens debacle, He wanted to prosecute the DOJ attorneys that withheld exculpatory evidence. But, the SP said Sullivan should not prosecute because he had not put in writing that he expected the Brady rule must be followed (even though it's the law). So, Sullivan did not prosecute the two DOJ scumbags, but he has issued the Brady statement in every one of his cases since then.