After Petitioner Jamil Al-Amin filed a federal habeas action challenging his Georgia conviction, the FBI for the first time produced: (1) a BOLO ("be on the lookout") bulletin issued to "ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES" the day after the crimes that described the perpetrator as "5' 6"-5' 8", 150-160 LBS" (Mr. Al-Amin stands 6' 5" and weighed 187 pounds); and (2) handwritten notes of the FBI's interview with the member of the Alabama dog tracking team who found the pistol allegedly used in the crimes, which noted that the officer stated he felt the pistol "was placed." Mr. Al-Amin then filed a state successive habeas action under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).

Discounting that Georgia state authorities had worked closely with the FBI in the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Al-Amin's criminal case, the state habeas court held the Prosecution did not have possession of the "it was placed" note. And even though (1) the BOLO bulletin directly supported Mr. Al-Amin's mistaken identity defense and (2) the "it was placed" note corroborates the defense theory that the weapons found in Alabama had been planted, the state habeas court found both documents immaterial.

The questions presented are:

1. Did the trial court err in holding the Prosecution did not have possession of the "it was placed" note ultimately produced by the FBI?

2. Did the trial court err in holding that the BOLO bulletin and the "it was placed" note did not constitute material evidence that could have impacted the outcome of the trial?

Did the trial court err in holding the Prosecution did not have possession of the 'it was placed' note ultimately produced by the FBI?