Whether DNA evidence that is not conclusively exculpatory but potentially undermines the prosecution's case constitutes a Brady violation requiring reversal

IS DNA DIFFERENT FOR BRADY CLAIMS? The State prosecutors suppressed DNA evidence of a third-party contributor which their own expert had labeled ''important*' to the defense in spite of her acknowledgement that this DNA had only minor peaks and was insufficient for comparison'. Indeed, , the presence of a third-party would have substantiated the defense theory that the DNA was planted on the complaintant's body from a recently used condom and called into question the value of the DNA the prosecutors relied on to corroborate the complaintant's testimony. DUE TO THE POWERFUL NATURE OF ;DNA AS OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT CARRIES GREAT WEIGHT WITH JURIES, WAS THE SUPPRESSED DNA "FAVORABLE ” AND "MATERIAL ” IN THIS CASE EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY EXCULPATE? The State Habeas Trial Court below concluded, Yes, because the jury did not believe the complaintant on the counts unsupported by DNA evidence and the other supposedly corroborating evidence had also been challenged. i