Klein v. Martin · ¶34

The state appellate court applied these rules instead of a suffciency-of-the-evidence test. The state court accurately summarized our Brady precedents, correctly stated the governing rule on materiality, and stated unequivocally that its decision was based on that rule. It recounted salient trial evidence, acknowledged where the State's theory of the case was “attenuated,” and said that the disclosure of the forensic report would likely have eliminated any adverse inference based on the concealment of evidence. App. 114a–115a, and n. 14. It also assumed that the jury would have “totally discredit[ed]” Carter's testimony had the State disclosed the report. Id., at 112a. Yet based on its review of the “ `entire record,' ” the court found that the evidence “linking” Martin to the crime was so “strong” that there was no “reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.