Whether the Brady v. Maryland standard requires a defendant to prove that withheld evidence is crucial, would affect the outcome, or affirmatively undermines other evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Capital Case) While prosecuting Randolph Moore for capital murder, the prosecutors in this case relied heavily on testimony from Angela Saldana—the only State witness to testify against Moore who was not involved in planning or carrying out the homicides. But State actors intimidated Saldana, coached her testimony, and offered her significant benefits, and the State failed to disclose this to Moore or his attorneys. After discovering this withheld information, Moore petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in Nevada state court, claiming that the State’s improper actions had deprived him of due process and a fair trial. But the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the state trial court’s denial of relief, reasoning that Saldana’s testimony was not “crucial” to the State’s case, would not have “affected the outcome” of the trial, and did not “affirmatively undermine” other evidence presented to the jury. The questions presented are: 1. Does Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), require a defendant to prove that withheld evidence is crucial to the State’s case? 2. Does Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), require a defendant to prove that withheld evidence would affect the outcome of a trial? 3. Does Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), require a defendant to prove that withheld evidence affirmatively undermines other evidence presented to the jury? i