Whether a petitioner who raises a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), must establish that they were more likely than not prejudiced by the government's suppression of favorable evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED As this Court has repeatedly and clearly held, to prevail on a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a defendant “need not show that he ‘more likely than not’ would have been acquitted had the new evidence been admitted.” Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385, 392 (2016) (quoting Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 75 (2012)). Despite this, in assessing Davel Chinn’s Brady claim, the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit required Chinn to prove that “it is more probable than not that the withheld evidence would have created a different result.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether a petitioner who raises a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), must establish that they were more likely than not prejudiced by the government’s suppression of favorable evidence. 2. Whether the judgment of the Sixth Circuit requiring the petitioner in this case to establish that he was more likely than not prejudiced by the government’s suppression of favorable evidence should be summarily reversed. i