Opinion ID: 1009453
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cumulative Materiality

Text: Finally, Bramblett argues that even if he has failed to establish that any of the individual pieces of withheld evidence is material, materiality is present when the individual pieces are viewed cumulatively. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436-37 (explaining that assessment of material15 Neither Judith’s interpretation of the statement, nor her further speculation that Carr was capable of murdering children, is admissible; hence, it is not subject to disclosure under Brady. See Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 6 (1995) (per curiam) (holding that inadmissible materials that are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible exculpatory evidence are not subject to disclosure under Brady). 16 Bramblett also maintains that timely disclosure of the information from Judith Stinnett could have led to further exculpatory information. This claim rests on little more than speculation, however, and there is no basis on which we can conclude that further investigation would have led to materially exculpatory information. 20 BRAMBLETT v. TRUE ity under Brady requires that evidence be considered collectively, not item by item). To the contrary, even when viewed collectively, the suppressed items—none of which is related to the others—do not place the evidence actually presented at trial in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.