parties agreed that post-conviction relief was warranted. In a chambers conference with counsel, the district court advised that it would not grant the stipulated resolution; however, it scheduled an evidentiary hearing to be held on April 28 and 29, 2014. Around April 7, 2014, at a status conference, counsel disclosed that they had recently learned of an additional CARES interview of S.Z., which would require granting postconviction relief. According to counsel, S.Z. made statements to Nurse Ortega that contradicted S.Z.’s previous statements. Counsel asserted that those statements were subject to Brady v. Maryland, even if unknown to the State, because of the role the CARES unit has in criminal investigations of child sexual abuse. 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>). On April 23, 2014, Molen and the State filed
holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation holding that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant