Whether the prosecution's intentional concealment of a cooperation agreement with a key witness constitutes a Brady violation that undermines the fundamental fairness of a capital murder trial

No question identified. : 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Wood can make all three of these showings. First, there is a reasonable probability that at least four Members of this Court would consider the issues in the petition sufficiently meritorious as to warrant either plenary review or summary reversal. The evidence developed at the reference hearing showed that Oklahoma County prosecutors entered into a cooperation agreement with Brandy Warden, a cooperating witness against Mr. Wood at his 2004 capital-murder trial. This cooperation memorandum promised Ms. Warden that she would receive a 35-year prison sentence in exchange for her testimony against Mr. Wood and his codefendants at their respective trials. Moreover, fulfilling the 35-year deal required Oklahoma County prosecutors to ensure that Ms. Warden’s pending deferred sentencing arrangement in another county would not be converted to a felony conviction, so that she could testify against Mr. Wood without fear of being impeached with that prior conviction. Although Ms. Warden entered into this agreement with Oklahoma County prosecutors in 2003, Mr. Wood did not find out about it until April 9, 2025, the last day of the hearing. The fact that this 35-year deal was the true and complete agreement with Ms. Warden was confirmed through the testimony of George Burnett, one of the prosecutors at Mr. Wood’s trial. Mr. Burnett explained that the reason the cooperation memorandum had been hidden from Mr. Wood for 22 years was because he wanted to avoid being exposed as having hidden it through testifying at a postconviction hearing—which is exactly what happened. Evidence at the trial phase and at the evidentiary hearing confirmed that concealing the cooperation memorandum from Mr. Wood for all time was the prosecutors’ strategy. The memorandum was dated February 4, 2003, and signed by Ms. Warden, her lawyer, and both prosecutors, Mr. Burnett and Fern Smith. But the judicial proceedings took a circuitous route on the way to fulfilling their promises to Ms. Warden, as due process requires. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). On February 19, 2003, Ms. Warden pleaded guilty in open court to lesser charges, as she had agreed to do two weeks earlier—accessory after the fact to murder, and conspiracy to commit robbery. A written plea agreement filed in open court reflected that she had agreed to a 45-year total sentence in exchange for her plea and testimony. At the change-of-plea hearing, Ms. Smith and Ms. Warden’s lawyer both falsely told the court that Ms. Warden’s deferred sentence had expired, when in fact there were eight months remaining on her probationary term. Ms. Warden was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement two months later. Ms. Warden testified against Mr. Wood on April 1, 2004. She minimized the extent of her involvement in the murder and robbery with which Mr. Wood had been charged, and she emphasized that Mr. Wood was the mastermind of the activity, with which she cooperated because she was afraid of him. The prosecutor elicited from Ms. Warden the terms of the plea agreement—truthful testimony against Mr. Wood in exchange for a 45year sentence. The prosecutor successfully objected to a question from Mr. Wood’s counsel on cross-examination that would have told the jury that Ms. Warden would be able to get out of prison in less time than the nominal 45-year sentence might suggest. And in their closing arguments at the guilt and penalty phases of Mr. Wood’s trial, both prosecutors stressed Ms. Warden’s testimony against Mr. Wood and her lack of felony convictions preceding the murder in this case. Mr. Wood was convicted of first-degree murder, and the jury sentenced him to death. On April 15, 2004, Ms. Warden appeared before the trial judge for an off-therecord hearing. The fact that the hearing was conducted off the record was not consistent with Oklahoma law, which required the hearing to b