Repository Collection 03
Hoke v. Netherland
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 10, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in Hoke v. Netherland, cited in Claim II of the Supplemental Motion. The opinion discusses the materiality of suppressed evidence under Brady v. Maryland and applies the reasonable-probability standard established by the United States Supreme Court.
Related SMAR Citation
“Hoke v. Netherland, 92 F.3d 1350 (4th Cir. 1996);”
Case Name
Hoke v. Netherland
Citation
92 F.3d 1350 (4th Cir. 1996)
Date
August 22, 1996
Verification Source
Official United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit opinion
Source Location
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Opinion
Highlighted Pages
7
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 56, Paragraph: 117
✔ Original Court Order obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
May's allegation that suppressed evidence is material under Brady when there is a reasonable
probability that disclosure would have produced a different result in the proceeding, and that a
reasonable probability exists when the suppression of evidence undermines confidence in the
outcome of the trial. May cites Hoke v. Netherland as additional Fourth Circuit authority applying
the Brady materiality standards established in United States v. Bagley and Kyles v. Whitley. May
relies upon this authority to support his claim that the cumulative suppression and exclusion of
impeachment and exculpatory evidence concerning Darrell Godfrey and other witnesses deprived
the jury of information that could have altered its assessment of the State's case and the resulting
verdict.
Link to the original article.
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim II.
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.
Source Status
Cited to Support
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Highlighted Research Copy
Continue Your Research
Return to Claim II
Return to Source Verification Archive