Can the constitutional right to due process be protected when federal courts regularly apply inconsistent and erroneous standards to determining the materiality of suppressed evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case arises from a sprawling RICO indictment charging 10 defendants with murder and other acts of violence. Petitioners’ convictions are based solely on testimony of incentivized cooperators who were leaders of the conspiracy. Following Petitioners’ trial an exculpatory letter surfaced that was written by one testifying cooperator to an Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney in a related state prosecution. It said, regarding the two main cooperators and leaders: “Our Federal case is all made up of lies[.] Darryl Franklin and Rabbit lied about a lot of things[.] You think anyone care[.]” The letter had been suppressed. As do many federal courts, the United States Court of Appeals applied a standard both inconsistent with standards applied by its own court as well as other circuit courts and, in this case, erroneous. The questions presented are: 1) Can the constitutional right to due process be protected when federal courts regularly apply inconsistent and erroneous standards to determining the materiality of suppressed evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)? 2) Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit apply an erroneous standard to assessing the materiality of a cooperating witness’s letter to an Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney stating that the entire case against the defendants is made up of lies? i