When a defendant seeks to withdraw his or her guilty plea based upon the Government's failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence, is the 'materiality' of withheld evidence judged by an objective standard or a subjective standard?

QUESTION PRESENTED In United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), this Court held that when a defendant seeks to withdraw his or her guilty plea based upon an FRCP Rule 11(b)(1) error, a subjective standard applies. That is to say, where a district court fails to advise a defendant of his or her rights under Rule 11(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, such defendant will be permitted to withdraw his or her guilty plea based upon a showing that the individual defendant would not have pled guilty, but-for the error. In a number of Circuits, however, a different rule has developed when a defendant seeks to withdraw his or her plea based upon a purported Brady violation. In such cases, the Second, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have all held that the fundamental inquiry is an objective one. Hence the question is not whether the individual defendant would have pled guilty but-for the Government’s conduct in withholding exculpatory evidence. Rather, the question is whether “a reasonable defendant” would have proceeded to trial. These circuits have held that if this question is answered in the negative, the withheld evidence is not “materially” exculpatory under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). As a result, such analyses typically focus upon the strength of the Government’s evidence and the likelihood of conviction at trial, notwithstanding the exculpatory evidence. We respectfully submit that these rulings are fundamentally inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Dominguez Benitez. Accordingly, this Petition presents the following questions: i 1. When a defendant seeks to withdraw his or her guilty plea based upon the Government’s failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence, is the “materiality” of withheld evidence judged by an objective standard or a subjective standard? In other words, should the district court consider whether the individual defendant would have proceeded to trial absent the discovery violation, or whether a hypothetical, “reasonable defendant” would have proceeded to trial? ii