Whether the Third Circuit's focus on trial counsel's effective use of Brady/Giglo material at trial is consistent with this Court's uniform precedent inquiring into whether there is a reasonable probability of a different result had the Brady/Giglio material been timely disclosed, such that the withheld evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial

QUESTION PRESENTED In this case, it is undisputed that the Government failed to timely disclose impeachment-related evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The evidence only came to light during trial, when the government’s star witness blurted it out on cross-examination. Both the District Court of the Virgin Islands and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found untimely disclosure. However, both Courts upheld the conviction on the ground that Mr. Henry failed to demonstrate prejudice, as his trial counsel provided effective representation once the impeachment-related evidence was disclosed during the witness’s cross-examination. The question presented is: Whether the Third Circuit’s focus on trial counsel’s effective use of Brady/Giglo material at trial is consistent with this Court’s uniform precedent inquiring into whether there is a reasonable probability of a different result had the Brady/Giglio material been timely disclosed, such that the withheld evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.