Under Brady vs. Maryland, a PCRA petitioner may establish a true Brady violation if the following can be proven; if the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or impeachment evidence, and said evidence was suppressed by the state, either willfully or inadvertently and prejudice has ensued. To prevail on a Brady claim a petitioner need not show that he "more likely than not" would have been acquitted had the new evidence been admitted. He must show only that the new evidence is sufficient to "undermine confidence " in the verdict. 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

In both cases in which the petitioner claimed a Brady violation occurred, the PCRA court claimed, even if Commonwealth witness Elvin Odoms testified under an alias, Al-Asim M. Abdul Karim, and the state did not correct and withheld his crimen falsi convictions which occurred 20 years before Mr. Rainey 's trial, it still does not matter. Mr. Rainey would have to prove that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted him based on his attempts to expose Mr. Odoms ' past criminal history. Additionally, the state court claimed, even without Mr. Odoms ' testimony there was overwhelming evidence that proved the petitioner participated in the crimes and his petitions are untimely filed.

The question in this case is as follows: whether a PCRA petitioner alleging a true Brady violation, and the state suppressed favorable evidence either willfully or inadvertently, evidence which Mr. Rainey could have used to expose Commonwealth 's witness Elvin Odoms, aka Al-Asim M. Abdul Karim, of his crimen falsi convictions that occurred 20 years before petitioner 's trial. Additionally, where the petitioner shows that the state court/PCRA court did not correctly apply Brady and held to prevail on a Brady claim, Mr. Rainey needs to show that he "more likely than not" would have been acquitted had the new evidence been admitted. Instead, Mr. Rainey must show only that the new evidence is sufficient to "undermine confidence " in the verdict.

Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions