"When police or prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching material, we hold, it is ordinarily incumbent on the state to set the record straight"
About this Quote
No soaring rhetoric, no abstract moralizing, just the cool click of a constitutional ratchet: the state, once it has tilted the scales by hiding evidence, has an affirmative duty to un-tilt them. Ginsburg’s line is surgical in its target and ambitious in its consequence. She isn’t merely scolding bad actors; she’s reframing the prosecutor’s role from adversary to fiduciary. The “record” is not a narrative to be won but a public artifact the government is obligated to keep honest.
The phrase “ordinarily incumbent” is classic judicial calibration. It signals a rule with texture: strong enough to guide lower courts, flexible enough to survive the hard case. That restraint is the subtextual power move. By avoiding absolutism, she makes the principle harder to caricature as “coddling criminals” and easier to treat as institutional hygiene.
Context matters: American criminal procedure runs on plea bargains, overworked defense counsel, and the immense informational advantage of the state. In that world, concealing “exculpatory or impeaching material” isn’t a technical foul; it’s a structural threat to legitimacy. “Exculpatory” speaks to innocence; “impeaching” speaks to credibility, the fragile currency of trials where juries decide whom to believe. Ginsburg ties both to the same duty because both can quietly decide a case before a jury ever hears it.
The deeper intent is reputational and democratic. If the government can bury evidence without later correction, the justice system becomes a machine for producing finality, not truth. “Set the record straight” sounds almost mundane, which is precisely the point: constitutional fairness should be boring, routine, expected.
The phrase “ordinarily incumbent” is classic judicial calibration. It signals a rule with texture: strong enough to guide lower courts, flexible enough to survive the hard case. That restraint is the subtextual power move. By avoiding absolutism, she makes the principle harder to caricature as “coddling criminals” and easier to treat as institutional hygiene.
Context matters: American criminal procedure runs on plea bargains, overworked defense counsel, and the immense informational advantage of the state. In that world, concealing “exculpatory or impeaching material” isn’t a technical foul; it’s a structural threat to legitimacy. “Exculpatory” speaks to innocence; “impeaching” speaks to credibility, the fragile currency of trials where juries decide whom to believe. Ginsburg ties both to the same duty because both can quietly decide a case before a jury ever hears it.
The deeper intent is reputational and democratic. If the government can bury evidence without later correction, the justice system becomes a machine for producing finality, not truth. “Set the record straight” sounds almost mundane, which is precisely the point: constitutional fairness should be boring, routine, expected.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Ruth
Add to List








