read from the transcript to the court that Ms. Kopy stated that she “didn’t remember” and “[did not] recall that happening.” The district court then denied the appellants’ Brady request for the transcript. We will overturn this verdict based on this alleged discovery violation only if the appellants show that granting the Brady request would have produced a reasonable “probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome.” United States v. Ellender, 947 F.2d 748, 756 (5th Cir.1991). Although exculpatory and impeachment evidence fall within the purview of Brady, neutral evidence does not. United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 619 (5th Cir.1989). See United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844, 99 S.Ct. 138, 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Ms. Kopy’s statement — to the effect that she
holding prosecutor had no brady duty to disclose that a certain witness could not positively identify the defendant holding that duty to disclose not neutralized because evidence was in the hands of the police rather than the prosecutor holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation holding as brady violation prosecutions failure to disclose to defense that prosecution had agreed not to prosecute key witness in exchange for his testimony at trial holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence