ScotusBlog: Smith vs. Cain

In the Smith vs. Cain case there were two main questions: 1) Whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of Smith's trial would have been different but for Brady and Giglio/Napue errors 2) whether the state courts violated the Due Process Clause by rejecting Smith's Brady and Giglio/Napue claims​
Smith vs. Cain originally takes place in New Orleans and it about the Orleans parish prosecutors with holding evidence to a case involving five murders that Juan Smith apparently committed. The prosecutors withheld material evidence and smith is arguing that it was an unfair trial because the 5th and 14th amendments says that the prosecutor has to show the evidence to the defendant. This gets supreme court attention because with holding evidence has been a reoccurring event for the Orleans parish prosecutors and having the defenders having an unfair trial is also a violation of the 6th amendment. It happened with the cases Brady vs. Maryland, Kyles vs. Whitley, and Connick vs. Thompson. The prosecution did say that they didn't give the evidence and that it was a harmless error but it was witness statements which became inconsistent as the trial went on which is actually pretty important for the trial.

I think that the court will give Smith another trial because it sounds like the court hates the Orleans Parish prosecutors so they would probably be very happy to spite them even though Smith was convicted for murdering five people.