Darrow was speaking to the attorneys associated with the James Arthur Ray trial, although the jury was not in the courtroom, since this was a hearing to discuss legal issues.

This particular issue? An email from Rick Haddow of Haddow Environmental Research Organization dated in April, 2010, has surfaced which suggests, according to the Defense, another possible cause of death, which might exculpate Ray's responsibility in the death of three people. (See the details in: The fact that the email exists isn't the problem, but the fact that the Prosecution failed to disclose it is the 'Brady violation' that Darrow was speaking about. For further information, read Motion for Mistrial in James Ray Case; Oral Arguments on Wednesday

Today, during Oral Arguments, Attorney Luis Li stated that if they'd had this information, they would have conducted their defense of Ray in a completely different manner. "My opening statement would have been different. Cross examination of every witness would have been different..."

What is a Brady violation? Here's a definition from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals:

"... the Supreme Court held in Brady that 'suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.' 373 U.S. at 87."

Now what?

The defense is requesting a mistrial. Not only that, they are asking for the State to be barred from retrying the case at all. 

Bill Hughes, the attorney for the State who spoke in Court today, argued that a mistrial is not an appropriate remedy, although he did not specify in his arguments today what would be more appropriate. According to Hughes, while the State admittedly did fail to disclose the email, in the Prosecution's perspective, it was incriminating, not exculpatory; neither was it material. Both are required in a Brady violation.

In the arguments filed last night, however, the State's briefing addressed a possible remedy, stating, "Allowing the Defendant  an opportunity to call an undisclosed expert if needed, including Mr. Haddow, will cure any prejudice incurred by the late disclosure of Mr. Haddow's e-mail. A mistrial is not appropriate given the facts in the matter."

The State also argued that the rights of the victims in this case would be violated, saying, "Granting a mistrial would ignore the victims' right to justice and due process, and, instead totally deprived [sic] the victims' family of any chance of seeing justice done in this matter."

Li argued in return that a mistrial is the only possible outcome because, "The whole process is infected by a lack of candor..."

At the beginning of the hearing this morning, it was decided that a discussion of some other legal issues would occur after the oral arguments in this matter.  Instead, Darrow changed his mind and said that since this was such an overriding issue, it would take him some time to research the law and come to a final decision.

Before Judge Darrow called the recess to consider the matter, he said, "I do find there was a Brady violation. the question is the remedy."

Darrow then indicated that he would not issue a ruling before this afternoon. 

In the meantime, the James A. Ray camp appears to be encouraged. After the ruling, they tweeted, "Judge ruled it was Brady... That's in our favor. Now he needs to decide what to do. Woohooo!!"