Did the Ninth Circuit's de novo disposition of Petitioner's Brady claim in the habeas corpus context, which focused exclusively on Bagley's earlier rule ("a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding might have been different," 473 U.S. at 682), conflict with Kyles's and its progeny's expanded approach toward materiality?

Did the Ninth Circuit's de novo disposition of Petitioner's Brady claim in the habeas corpus context, which focused exclusively on Bagley's earlier tule ('a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding might have been different,' 473 U.S. at 682), conflict with Kyles's and its progeny's expanded approach toward materiality?