Whether material exculpatory evidence is unconstitutionally suppressed when the defense is made aware its existence and its content, but is later incorrectly told that it either no longer existed or had never existed

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Dan Hostetler, an Amish man, falsely confessed to killing Brandon Crain, who appears to have committed suicide. The Hart County Sheriffs Office had gas station surveillance video showing Crain walking towards the bridge that he jumped off, but even after the prosecution disclosed its existence to Dan and his defense attorney, it was never produced. The defense was told that it either no longer existed or had never existed. Dan then entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution. During a postconviction proceeding, the video resurfaced. The Hart County Circuit Court vacated Dan’s conviction for this Brady violation and set a trial date, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeals ruled that Dan and his attorney’s knowledge of the video and its contents defeated the suppression prong of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and that this Court had not yet extended the Brady doctrine to guilty plea proceedings. The circuits are split on both issues. Thus, the specific questions presented are: (1) Whether material exculpatory evidence is unconstitutionally suppressed when the defense is made aware its existence and its content, but is later incorrectly told that it either no longer existed or had never existed; and (2) Whether the Constitution requires prosecutors to disclose material exculpatory evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant. 1 LIST OF ALL