Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, prosecutors have an obligation to disclose evidence favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching. Federal prosecutors interviewed a key government witness on the eve of the criminal jury trial but failed to disclose to the defense either the fact of the interview or the notes created by the government. While the witness's name arose 118 times during the trial, he was never called to testify.

Long after trial, Petitioner learned for the first time about the interview when the witness provided an affidavit. He averred he told the government Petitioner was not the individual responsible for the series of events that led a local airport authority to guarantee a loan for a startup airline business. That loan guarantee formed the basis for the charges against Petitioner, the witness was intimately involved in the process, and the information he provided would have impeached the testimony of several other government trial witnesses.

Federal prosecutors refused to provide the notes from the meeting to the defense either before or during habeas evidentiary hearing addressing Petitioner's Brady claims, and the District Court denied Petitioner's motion to compel production. The Question Presented is:

Whether defendants raising Brady violations that can show the government suppressed evidence are entitled to production of that evidence in discovery to meet their burden of proof in a habeas proceeding?

Whether defendants raising Brady violations that can show the government suppressed evidence are entitled to production of that evidence in discovery to meet their burden of proof in a habeas proceeding?