Connection lost
Server error
Kyles v. Whitley Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction, finding the state violated the defendant’s due process rights by suppressing favorable evidence. The Court held that the cumulative effect of the withheld evidence was material, undermining confidence in the jury’s verdict and requiring a new trial.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the Brady materiality standard, holding that suppressed evidence must be assessed cumulatively. It establishes that the prosecutor’s disclosure duty extends to all favorable evidence known to the government’s investigative team, including the police, regardless of the prosecutor’s personal awareness.
Kyles v. Whitley Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Curtis Kyles was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after his first trial ended in a hung jury. The state’s case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence linked to Kyles through a police informant, Joseph “Beanie” Wallace. After his conviction, it was discovered that the prosecution had withheld several pieces of evidence favorable to the defense. This suppressed evidence included: (1) contemporaneous eyewitness statements that contained descriptions of the assailant inconsistent with Kyles and more consistent with Beanie; (2) multiple contradictory statements made by Beanie to the police, which revealed his unreliability and potential motive to frame Kyles; (3) a police-generated list of license plates from cars in the crime scene parking lot, which did not include Kyles’s car; and (4) information linking Beanie to other crimes. The defense’s theory at trial was that Beanie was the actual murderer who had planted evidence to frame Kyles. The withheld evidence would have substantially supported this theory by impeaching the state’s key witnesses and the integrity of the police investigation.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the state’s failure to disclose multiple pieces of favorable evidence, when considered cumulatively, violate the defendant’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland by undermining confidence in the trial’s outcome?
Yes. The state’s suppression of evidence violated Kyles’s due process rights because Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the state’s failure to disclose multiple pieces of favorable evidence, when considered cumulatively, violate the defendant’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland by undermining confidence in the trial’s outcome?
Conclusion
*Kyles v. Whitley* reinforces the breadth of the *Brady* rule, mandating a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis a
Legal Rule
Under *Brady v. Maryland*, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the prosecution has an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
Legal Analysis
The Court clarified and applied four key aspects of the materiality standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under Brady, the materiality of suppressed evidence is judged by its