Where there was suppressed exculpatory evidence, in the form of a proffer letter demonstrating that a key prosecution witness who provided significant, and the only direct, evidence of premeditation sufficient to support a first degree murder conviction was offered consideration for his "attempts to cooperate with the State," did the First Circuit err in denying habeas relief by finding that the State Court's "no-prejudice determination" was not an unreasonable application of Brady?

Where there was suppressed exculpatory evidence, in the form of a proffer letter demonstrating that a key prosecution witness who provided significant, and the only direct, evidence of premeditation sufficient to support a first degree murder conviction was offered consideration for his 'attempts to cooperate with the State,' did the First Circuit err in denying habeas relief by finding that the State Court's 'no-prejudice determination' was not an unreasonable application of Brady?