29:
134:
The defendant, Juan Smith, was convicted of murdering five people during an armed robbery based upon the testimony of a single witness. Smith appealed the verdict because the prosecution failed to disclose statements made by that witness to an investigator prior to trial that the witness:
178:, which states that evidence is material when "there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different." As the Court explained, quoting
95:
60:
270:
184:, the "reasonable probability" standard looks to whether "the likelihood of a different result is great enough to 'undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.'”
280:
817:
187:
The Court stated that the witness's statements were "plainly material," because they were the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime.
263:
109:
33:
256:
373:
218:
Joshua
Dressler & George C. Thomas Iii, Criminal Procedure: Principles, Policies, And Perspectives 901(4th ed. 2009).
745:
812:
567:
616:
165:
The issue before the Court was whether or not the suppressed statements by the sole witness were material under
761:
709:
317:
495:
604:
503:
473:
174:
413:
341:
656:
624:
487:
325:
535:
527:
389:
680:
543:
511:
421:
365:
357:
55:
729:
721:
405:
397:
769:
632:
559:
381:
753:
737:
139:
could not provide a description of the robbery perpetrators other than that they were black males;
785:
688:
672:
551:
349:
283:
169:. If so, the prosecution had violated Smith's due process rights. The Court held that they were.
207:“A Verdict Worthy of Confidence”: The Weakening of Brady’s “Materiality” Requirement in Missouri
777:
648:
640:
465:
248:
114:
664:
519:
450:
309:
297:
180:
119:
429:
806:
333:
575:
172:
The Court began its analysis recounting the standard on materiality set forth in
154:
77:
Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
150:
153:
state courts rejected Smith's appeal and the
Supreme Court granted
142:
could not identify anyone because he could not see their faces; and
707:
602:
448:
295:
252:
28:
126:
the "most recent pronouncement on the discovery issue."
89:
81:
73:
68:
50:
40:
21:
264:
8:
108:, 565 U.S. 73, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012), is a
704:
599:
445:
292:
271:
257:
249:
145:would not know the robbers if he saw them.
18:
195:
16:2012 United States Supreme Court case
7:
374:County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
236:
234:
232:
230:
228:
226:
224:
201:
199:
746:New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson
34:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
818:United States Supreme Court cases
209:, 82 MO. L. REV. 241, 251 (2017).
243:, 132 S. Ct. 627, 629–31 (2012).
27:
1:
122:. Joshua Dressler has called
568:Youngblood v. West Virginia
110:United States Supreme Court
834:
762:Mesarosh v. United States
716:
703:
611:
598:
460:
444:
304:
291:
94:
26:
710:Prosecutorial misconduct
318:Holland v. United States
205:Robert Wasserman, Note,
112:decision clarifying the
617:Bishop v. United States
504:United States v. Bagley
496:California v. Trombetta
474:Giglio v. United States
175:United States v. Bagley
625:Dusky v. United States
488:United States v. Agurs
326:Leary v. United States
118:standard for criminal
96:U.S. Const. amend. XIV
681:Sell v. United States
544:United States v. Ruiz
512:Arizona v. Youngblood
414:Sullivan v. Louisiana
358:Patterson v. New York
342:Cool v. United States
657:Medina v. California
382:Sandstrom v. Montana
536:Strickler v. Greene
528:Wood v. Bartholomew
390:Jackson v. Virginia
813:Due Process Clause
786:McDonough v. Smith
689:Indiana v. Edwards
673:Cooper v. Oklahoma
552:Illinois v. Fisher
422:Victor v. Nebraska
366:Taylor v. Kentucky
350:Mullaney v. Wilbur
800:
799:
796:
795:
778:Napue v. Illinois
730:Hysler v. Florida
722:Mooney v. Holohan
699:
698:
649:Riggins v. Nevada
641:Drope v. Missouri
605:Mental competence
594:
593:
481:Moore v. Illinois
466:Brady v. Maryland
440:
439:
406:Cage v. Louisiana
398:Murray v. Carrier
167:Brady v. Maryland
115:Brady v. Maryland
101:
100:
825:
770:Alcorta v. Texas
705:
665:Godinez v. Moran
633:Pate v. Robinson
600:
520:Kyles v. Whitley
446:
310:Leland v. Oregon
298:Reasonable doubt
293:
273:
266:
259:
250:
244:
238:
219:
216:
210:
203:
181:Kyles v. Whitley
31:
30:
19:
833:
832:
828:
827:
826:
824:
823:
822:
803:
802:
801:
792:
712:
695:
607:
590:
560:Banks v. Dretke
456:
436:
300:
287:
277:
247:
239:
222:
217:
213:
204:
197:
193:
163:
132:
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
831:
829:
821:
820:
815:
805:
804:
798:
797:
794:
793:
791:
790:
782:
774:
766:
758:
754:White v. Ragen
750:
742:
738:Pyle v. Kansas
734:
726:
717:
714:
713:
708:
701:
700:
697:
696:
694:
693:
685:
677:
669:
661:
653:
645:
637:
629:
621:
612:
609:
608:
603:
596:
595:
592:
591:
589:
588:
580:
572:
564:
556:
548:
540:
532:
524:
516:
508:
500:
492:
484:
478:
470:
461:
458:
457:
449:
442:
441:
438:
437:
435:
434:
430:Schlup v. Delo
426:
418:
410:
402:
394:
386:
378:
370:
362:
354:
346:
338:
330:
322:
314:
305:
302:
301:
296:
289:
288:
279:United States
278:
276:
275:
268:
261:
253:
246:
245:
220:
211:
194:
192:
189:
162:
159:
147:
146:
143:
140:
131:
128:
99:
98:
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
65:
52:
48:
47:
42:
41:Full case name
38:
37:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
830:
819:
816:
814:
811:
810:
808:
788:
787:
783:
780:
779:
775:
772:
771:
767:
764:
763:
759:
756:
755:
751:
748:
747:
743:
740:
739:
735:
732:
731:
727:
724:
723:
719:
718:
715:
711:
706:
702:
691:
690:
686:
683:
682:
678:
675:
674:
670:
667:
666:
662:
659:
658:
654:
651:
650:
646:
643:
642:
638:
635:
634:
630:
627:
626:
622:
619:
618:
614:
613:
610:
606:
601:
597:
586:
585:
584:Smith v. Cain
581:
578:
577:
573:
570:
569:
565:
562:
561:
557:
554:
553:
549:
546:
545:
541:
538:
537:
533:
530:
529:
525:
522:
521:
517:
514:
513:
509:
506:
505:
501:
498:
497:
493:
490:
489:
485:
482:
479:
476:
475:
471:
468:
467:
463:
462:
459:
455:
453:
447:
443:
432:
431:
427:
424:
423:
419:
416:
415:
411:
408:
407:
403:
400:
399:
395:
392:
391:
387:
384:
383:
379:
376:
375:
371:
368:
367:
363:
360:
359:
355:
352:
351:
347:
344:
343:
339:
336:
335:
334:In re Winship
331:
328:
327:
323:
320:
319:
315:
312:
311:
307:
306:
303:
299:
294:
290:
285:
282:
274:
269:
267:
262:
260:
255:
254:
251:
242:
241:Smith v. Cain
237:
235:
233:
231:
229:
227:
225:
221:
215:
212:
208:
202:
200:
196:
190:
188:
185:
183:
182:
177:
176:
170:
168:
160:
158:
156:
152:
144:
141:
138:
137:
136:
129:
127:
125:
124:Smith v. Cain
121:
117:
116:
111:
107:
106:
105:Smith v. Cain
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
69:Case opinions
67:
63:
62:
57:
53:
49:
46:
45:Smith v. Cain
43:
39:
35:
25:
22:Smith v. Cain
20:
784:
776:
768:
760:
752:
744:
736:
728:
720:
687:
679:
671:
663:
655:
647:
639:
631:
623:
615:
583:
582:
576:Cone v. Bell
574:
566:
558:
550:
542:
534:
526:
518:
510:
502:
494:
486:
480:
472:
464:
451:
428:
420:
412:
404:
396:
388:
380:
372:
364:
356:
348:
340:
332:
324:
316:
308:
240:
214:
206:
186:
179:
173:
171:
166:
164:
148:
133:
123:
113:
104:
103:
102:
90:Laws applied
59:
44:
284:due process
807:Categories
454:disclosure
191:References
155:certiorari
151:Louisiana
120:discovery
51:Citations
286:case law
281:criminal
74:Majority
161:Holding
82:Dissent
789:(2019)
781:(1959)
773:(1957)
765:(1956)
757:(1945)
749:(1943)
741:(1942)
733:(1942)
725:(1935)
692:(2008)
684:(2003)
676:(1996)
668:(1993)
660:(1992)
652:(1992)
644:(1975)
636:(1966)
628:(1960)
620:(1956)
587:(2012)
579:(2009)
571:(2006)
563:(2004)
555:(2004)
547:(2002)
539:(1999)
531:(1995)
523:(1995)
515:(1988)
507:(1985)
499:(1984)
491:(1976)
483:(1972)
477:(1972)
469:(1963)
433:(1995)
425:(1994)
417:(1993)
409:(1990)
401:(1986)
393:(1979)
385:(1979)
377:(1979)
369:(1978)
361:(1977)
353:(1975)
345:(1972)
337:(1970)
329:(1969)
321:(1954)
313:(1952)
85:Thomas
452:Brady
130:Facts
149:All
61:more
58:73 (
56:U.S.
54:565
809::
223:^
198:^
157:.
272:e
265:t
258:v
64:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.