Repository Collection 03
Monroe v. Angelone
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 Monroe v. Angelone, cited in Claim II of the Supplemental Motion. The opinion discusses the materiality of suppressed impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland and explains how undisclosed evidence affecting the credibility of a key prosecution witness may undermine confidence in a criminal conviction.
Related SMAR Citation
“Monroe v. Angelene, 323 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2003): given the probability that if the state had disclosed impeachment evidence about a key prosecution witness, the defendant would not have been convicted, as the witness' testimony provided major evidence and the undisclosed impeachment materials would have rendered witness testimony far less credible].”
Case Name
Monroe v. Angelone
Citation
323 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2003)
Date
March 26, 2003
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
2, 12
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 impeachment evidence concerning a key prosecution witness
may be material under Brady when that witness provides significant evidence supporting
conviction; that disclosure of such impeachment evidence may create a reasonable probability of
a different result; that suppression of such evidence undermines confidence in the verdict; and
that Brady materiality must be evaluated by considering the cumulative effect of all suppressed
evidence rather than examining each item separately. May cites Monroe v. Angelone to support
his claim that Darrell Godfrey functioned as a critical witness in the State's case and that
impeachment evidence concerning Godfrey's credibility, mental condition, inconsistent statements,
criminal history, and likely commission of the murders could have substantially altered the jury's
assessment of the evidence 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