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.
Related SMAR Citation
“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);“
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
Source Status
✔ Original United States Supreme Court opinion obtained and reviewed
✔ Relevant holding highlighted
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
Cited to Support
Lyle C. May alleges that favorable and material evidence arising from the 1997 Asheville, North Carolina case 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.
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Link to the original article.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Introduction
Continue browsing the sources cited in the Introduction to the Supplemental Motion.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.