California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ponce, H039256 (Cal. App. 2014):
"Materiality . . . requires more than a showing that the suppressed evidence would have been admissible [citation], that the absence of the suppressed evidence made conviction 'more likely' [citation], or that using the suppressed evidence to discredit a witness's testimony 'might have changed the outcome of the trial' [citation]. A defendant instead 'must show a "reasonable probability of a different result." ' " (People v. Salazar, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1043.)
" 'In general, impeachment evidence has been found to be material where the witness at issue "supplied the only evidence linking the defendant(s) to the crime," [citations], or where the likely impact on the witness's credibility would have undermined a critical element of the prosecution's case, [citations]. In contrast, a new trial is generally not required when the testimony of the witness "is corroborated by other testimony." ' " (People v. Salazar, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1050.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.