Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
The government's withholding of evidence that is material to the determination of either guilt or punishment of a criminal defendant violates the defendant's constitutional right to due process.
Which part of this is not clear?
The government may have 37 pieces of evidence.
It may choose to reduce the charges down to 1 and only produce 1 document that was ‘sensitive’ at the time of the alleged ‘crime’ but no longer is.
Only exonerating evidence has to be turned over to the defense.
Of course Trump should have read at least part of each of those 37 that others at the times of handing them to him thought he should read.
If Trump was demanding a speedy trial, then he might have a right to see all 37 again.
WIKI
The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” The Court determined that under Maryland law, the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to his level of punishment. Thus, the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling was affirmed – Brady would receive a new sentencing hearing but not a new trial.
William O. Douglas wrote: “We now hold that the 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... Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair.”
Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.” Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s witnesses and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.
In United States v. Bagley (1985), the Court narrowed the reach of Brady by stating the suppressed evidence had to be “exculpatory” and “material” for a violation to result in the reversal of a conviction. Harry Blackmun wrote in Bagley that “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland