Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sharon A. Riek, 834 N.W.2d 384

Sharon A. Riek, an assistant district attorney in Wisconsin, faced a disciplinary complaint alleging violations of SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(h) (enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f)).
The dispute centers on whether Riek delayed disclosing exculpatory information regarding a third-party admission of possessing marijuana in the Tyrone Smith case, known as the Simpson information.
Simpson admitted the marijuana belonged to him, not Smith, and this information was discussed with the DA and defense investigators at various times beginning in late 2008.
A Simpson Note, detailing Simpson’s ownership, was provided to Riek and later disclosed to the defense four days before a trial that was ultimately never held.
Smith’s charges were dismissed March 31, 2009; the OLR filed the disciplinary complaint May 9, 2011.
Referee Dubis recommended summary judgment for Riek, concluding the exculpatory information was already in the defense's possession by October 15, 2008, and that no ethical or statutory violation occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) imposes broader disclosure than Brady	OLR argues SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) requires broader, non-material-discretionary disclosure.	Riek contends SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) is aligned with constitutional Brady materiality.	SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) aligned with Brady; not broadened beyond materiality.
Whether Simpson Note disclosure was material under Brady	OLR says the Simpson Note was material and should have been disclosed earlier.	Riek argues the information was cumulative and not material to trial outcome.	Not material; disclosure four days before trial did not affect outcome.
Whether Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(h) was violated by delayed disclosure	OLR asserts violation of statutory obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence timely.	Riek maintained the disclosure occurred in time for effective use and was not a deliberate violation.	No violation; disclosure four days before an unheld trial did not breach the statute.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (federal due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence that is material)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality standard for exculpatory evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (probability of favorable evidence affecting the trial outcome)
State v. Harris, 272 Wis. 2d 80 (Wis. 2004) (Brady-like disclosure standard applied in Wisconsin context)
In re Jordan, 913 So. 2d 775 (La. 2005) (constitutional disclosure standards guide ethics rules)
Kellogg-Martin, 923 N.E.2d 125 (Ohio 2010) (prosecutorial disclosure obligations and ethics discipline)