Repository Collection 03
Strickler v. Greene
527 U.S. 263 (1999)
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 4, 2026
Strickler v. Greene clarified the elements of a constitutional violation under Brady v. Maryland. The United States Supreme Court explained that a defendant must demonstrate that favorable evidence was suppressed by the State and that the suppressed evidence was material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.
Related SMAR Citation
“Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 289 (1999), reviewing the merits of the defendant's Brady claim where the prosecution's representation that the State had disclosed such evidence, and the State contended in prior proceedings that the defendant had already received everything known to the prosecution]”
Case Name
Strickler v. Greene
Citation
527 U.S. 263 (1999)
Date
June 17, 1999
Verification Source
Official United States Supreme Court opinion located through Justia.
Source Location
United States Supreme Court Opinion
Highlighted Pages
264
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 prosecutors and law enforcement agencies involved in the 1997 Asheville, North Carolina case failed to disclose favorable and material evidence while maintaining that all required disclosures had been provided to the defense. May cites Strickler v. Greene to support review of Brady claims where the State represented that exculpatory and impeachment evidence had been disclosed, but later-discovered information revealed that favorable evidence had in fact been withheld. May relies upon this authority to support his claim that significant evidence concerning witness credibility, law-enforcement misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and the investigation of the offenses was not disclosed during his trial and prior post-conviction proceedings despite representations that disclosure obligations had been satisfied.
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.