Repository Collection 03
Banks v. Dretke
540 U.S. 668 (2004)
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 4, 2026
Banks v. Dretke reaffirmed the prosecution's constitutional obligation to disclose favorable evidence and rejected the notion that a defendant must discover evidence the prosecution failed to disclose. The United States Supreme Court emphasized that due process requires prosecutors to disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence regardless of the defense's diligence.
“Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (1. Evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either
because it is exculpatory or it is impeaching; 2. Evidence must have been suppressed by the State
either willfully or inadvertently; 3. Prejudice must have ensued);“
Related SMAR Citation
Case Name
Banks v. Dretke
Citation
540 U.S. 668 (2004)
Date
February 24, 2004
Verification Source
Official United States Supreme Court opinion located through GovInfo.
Source Location
United States Supreme Court Opinion
Highlighted Pages
696
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 6, Paragraph 6
✔ Original United States Supreme Court opinion obtained and reviewed
✔ Relevant holding highlighted
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
May's allegation that favorable and material evidence was suppressed by the State and that the
cumulative effect of that suppression deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. May cites Banks v.
Dretke to support the three essential components of a Brady violation: that the evidence be
favorable to the accused because it is exculpatory or impeaching, that the evidence be
suppressed by the State either willfully or inadvertently, and that prejudice result from the
suppression. May relies upon this authority to support his claim that the withheld impeachment
and exculpatory evidence described throughout the Supplemental MAR satisfies the constitutional
standard for post-conviction relief and undermines confidence in the verdict.
Link to the original article.
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue browsing the sources cited in the Introduction to the Supplemental Motion.
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 Introduction
Return to Source Verification Archive