In Brady this Court held "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, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87. We have since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, [United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97, 107], and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, [United States v. Bagley, (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 676]. Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id at 682; see also [Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 433-434]."
IMO, the judge saves his butt by ruling that the information would not have effected the outcome of the trial. But he really knows that that decision is not completely defensible. So, instead of ruling a mistrial, he lowers the sentence. He gets to wash his hands of the affair. Let an Appeals court rule.
The prosecution lies. The judge doesn't have the cajones to call them on it.
You seem like a reasonable person. Let's run this scenario. You are the member of a jury/panel. The forensic expert on the witness chair is asked what the evidence shows, and if it is consistent with the statements made by the defendant. He says yes, I even conducted an experiment to prove out what the evidence showed. It is the ONLY thing that makes sense. The govt. has a dead body, but the defendant's statement and the testimony of the expert Govt. witness are compatible. Being a reasonable person, would you be able to draw a reasonable conclusion? Not according to the judge. Not according to the prosecution.
I stand by my earlier post.
It is Chicken****.