In re Lee, 301 Ga. 74

Asst. DA Demone Wyatt Lee prosecuted child-sex case (oral and anal sodomy). He had limited time and experience with such cases and was assigned ~3 weeks before trial.
A week before trial Lee interviewed the child, who recanted/denied that the accused "touched [his] butt." Lee did not disclose that pretrial denial to defense counsel.
At trial Lee played a recorded prior statement in which the child had implicated the accused in both acts, then called the child as a witness; on direct the child denied the anal sodomy. Lee elicited and argued the recantation, conceding the anal-sodomy count; the jury acquitted on that count.
After trial defense counsel learned of Lee’s prior interview denial; defense moved for new trial, the State consented, and the trial court granted it.
The State Bar charged Lee with violating Ga. R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(d) (Brady-type disclosure obligation). The special master and Review Panel found a technical Rule 3.8(d) violation and recommended a formal admonition; the State Bar sought public reprimand.
The Supreme Court of Georgia held the record did not show a clear-cut Brady/Rule 3.8(d) violation under the circumstances and imposed no discipline, though it cautioned prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence promptly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lee violated Brady/Rule 3.8(d) by not disclosing the child’s pretrial denial before trial	State Bar: Lee suppressed exculpatory evidence (pretrial denial) and thus violated Brady and Rule 3.8(d)	Lee: nondisclosure was unintentional, defense learned the substance at trial when child recanted on direct, and Lee conceded the anal-sodomy charge	Court: No clear-cut Brady/3.8(d) violation shown on this record; no discipline imposed
Whether timely disclosure under Brady required pretrial disclosure here	State Bar: failure to disclose pretrial was material and untimely	Lee: disclosure at trial (child’s direct testimony and prosecutor’s concession) made evidence available; defense had cross-examination opportunity	Court: Brady does not always require pretrial disclosure; trial disclosure can satisfy Brady depending on prejudice and opportunity to examine witness
Whether Lee’s intent or inexperience affects discipline under Rule 3.8(d)	State Bar: rule violated regardless of intent; discipline appropriate	Lee: acted in good faith, inadvertent oversight, inexperienced, no bad faith, and no demonstrated prejudice	Court: Intent irrelevant for violation but record lacked clear prejudice here; findings of no bad faith accepted and no discipline warranted

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence regardless of good or bad faith)
Burgan v. State, 258 Ga. 512 (1988) (pretrial disclosure not always required; material available during trial can satisfy Brady)
Floyd v. State, 263 Ga. App. 42 (2003) (prosecutor’s introduction of evidence at trial can avoid suppression finding where defendant can cross-examine)
Nelson v. State, 279 Ga. App. 859 (2006) (prosecutor introducing exculpatory testimony at trial may satisfy Brady)
In re Kline, 113 A.3d 202 (D.C. App. 2015) (discusses scope of Brady-like ethical obligations; courts differ on coextensiveness)
In the Matter of Woodham, 296 Ga. 618 (2015) (disciplinary proceedings and public identification principles)
In the Matter of Wallace, 292 Ga. 899 (2013) (disciplinary proceedings precedent)