Repository Collection 03

Kyles v. Whitley

CASE ENTRY

Last Revised • July 10, 2026

This Source Verification Page documents the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kyles v. Whitley, cited in Claim II of the Supplemental Motion. The opinion establishes that the materiality of suppressed evidence under Brady must be evaluated cumulatively rather than item by item when determining whether the suppression deprived a defendant of a fair trial.


Related SMAR Citation

“In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the Court held that to determine whether evidence not disclosed by the state was "material" for purposes of Brady, the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence is considered, rather than considering each item of evidence individually, and whether the favorable evidence would have made a different result "reasonably probable" in the prosecution”


Case Name

Kyles v. Whitley


Citation

514 U.S. 419 (1995)


Date

April 19, 1995


Verification Source

Official United States Supreme Court opinion


Source Location

United States Supreme Court Opinion


Highlighted Pages

419 - 420, 434, 436


Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 56, Paragraph: 117


Source Status

✔ Original Court Order obtained and reviewed.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive


Cited to Support

May's allegation that the materiality of suppressed evidence under Brady must be evaluated by considering the cumulative effect of all favorable evidence withheld by the State, rather than assessing each item individually. May cites Kyles v. Whitley to support the principle that suppressed evidence is material when, viewed collectively, there is a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result or undermined confidence in the outcome of the trial. May relies upon this authority to argue that the cumulative effect of the suppressed impeachment evidence, excluded testimony, and undisclosed investigative information described throughout the SMAR deprived the Defendant of a fair trial.


Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the original article.

View Website →


Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →


Continue Your Research

Return to Claim II

Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim II.

Browse Sources →

Return to Source Verification Archive

Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.

Browse Archive →