Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa. 1986),[1] is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1986 which overruled close to two centuries of decisional law in Pennsylvania and established a common law exception to the rule against hearsay.

The decision stands for the proposition that the recorded, adopted statement of a witness to a crime inconsistent with her testimony at trial is properly admitted for both purposes of impeachment and as substantive evidence: "for its truth.

"[2] In Commonwealth v. Lively,[3] the rule was extended with respect to "verbatim contemporaneous recording[s] of .

[4] The facts as set forth in the majority opinion are excerpted: Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Brady, a criminal defendant could obtain a judgment of acquittal when the Commonwealth's case relied completely or principally on out of court statements by witnesses.

[6] The typical scenario would involve a witness that recanted or disavowed an earlier statement made to police officers (see Facts section infra) concerning the defendant's liability.