Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit deny Owney's right to constitutional due process by applying an erroneous standard in assessing materiality of a cooperating witness's late-disclosed Brady letter stating the entire case was made up of lies?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW After Terrioues Owney and nine co-defendants were convicted of RICO violations, drug charges, and several murders, but before sentencing, the government turned over to the defendants a letter written by one of the government’s cooperating witnesses. The letter — in the government’s possession for at least nine months prior to the trial — stated that the cooperators (the government’s key witnesses) “lied about a lot of things” and “[o[ur Federal case is all made up of lies.” Despite the late Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d the trial court denied a motion for new trial. On appeal, the court failed to consider materiality in terms of ‘reasonable probability’ — that there would have been a different result at trial if the evidence had been timely disclosed. Unless this Court is prepared to expand the Brady materiality test, the decision of the appellate court is erroneous. The questions before this Court, therefore, are: Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit deny Owney’s right to constitutional due process by applying an erroneous standard in assessing materiality of a cooperating witness’s late-disclosed Brady letter stating the entire case was made up of lies? Alternatively, does the Brady decision forego the material analysis that the suppressed evidence would have resulted in a different verdict at trial had the evidence been timely disclosed?