holding that time-stamped receipt calling into question eyewitness’s testimony that the petitioner was in the vicinity of. the crime scene at the time' of the crime was material because it “would have necessarir ly bolstered [the petitioner’s] alibi defense narrative and ‘put the whole case ... in -a different light’”
How later courts described this case
- holding that time-stamped receipt calling into question eyewitness’s testimony that the petitioner was in the vicinity of. the crime scene at the time' of the crime was material because it “would have necessarir ly bolstered [the petitioner’s] alibi defense narrative and ‘put the whole case ... in -a different light’”
- holding that time- stamped receipt calling into question eyewitness’s testimony that the petitioner was in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the crime was material because it “would have necessarily bolstered [the petitioner’s] alibi defense narrative and ‘put the whole case . . . in a different light’”
- holding that it was clearly established federal law that inadmissible evidence could be the basis for a Brady16 violation, despite the fact that a minority of Circuit courts had held that only admissible evidence could be the basis for such a violation
- holding that multiple failures of the Commonwealth to turn over discovery information under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), constituted error, the cumulative effect of which "command[ed]" a new trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by Commonwealth v. Natividad, R., Aplt., 200 A.3d 11 (2019)
In this respect, we reject appellant's reliance on the Third Circuit's sharply-divided en banc decision in Dennis .
The opinion
AMBRO, Circuit Judge,
joins in this concurring opinion.
APPENDIX: Eyewitness Identifications
*345 Table 1 — Photo Array Identifications
[[Image here]]
*346 Table 2 — Lineup Identifications
[[Image here]]