Lavar Brown v. Pennsylvania

A claim for relief under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), has three components: “The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999). The question presented is: Does the precedent set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court below wrongly limit “favorable” evidence under Brady to that which definitively proves an exculpatory fact?