Did Wyoming state courts misapply the Brady v. Maryland rule by concluding that the prosecution's withholding of material exculpatory evidence did not constitute a Brady violation?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Constitutional rule set out in Brady v. Maryland and its progeny requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory evidence to the defense. In a criminal case involving disputed eyewitness testimony—and no other evidence—the prosecution failed to disclose its sole corroborating witness’s prior theft and enrollment in a diversion and probation program. The prosecution further failed to disclose its key witness’s changing recollection of events during pre-trial, prep meetings with the prosecution. Finally, the prosecution failed to disclose that it had promised its witnesses that they would not be prosecuted for their own misconduct. The jury rendered a split verdict with the defense conducting only a limited cross-examination on the prosecution’s key witness and its sole corroborating witness. Did Wyoming state courts misapply the Constitutional rule set out in Brady v. Maryland and its progeny in concluding that that the prosecution’s withholding of this evidence—even when considered cumulatively— did not constitute a Brady violation? (i)