AB; no physical evidence was present, and the appellee’s statements in the pretext phone call provided no significant inculpatory information. Even if the two senior noncommissioned officers expressed some uncertainty about exactly what SMSgt AB told them, any indication that SMSgt AB may have made inconsistent statements directly about a charged rape could be reasonably likely to affect the judgment of the factfinder. Cf. Romano, 46 M.J. at 273 (finding the appellant was prejudiced by the Government’s failure to provide discovery of exculpatory statements by an enlisted member with whom the appellant, an officer, was accused to have fraternized because “[t]he central issue in this case was the credibility of the witnesses”); United States v. Brickey, 16 M.J. 268, 268-69 (C.M.A.1983) (<HOLDING>). We do not know whether the statements by the
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 that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that prejudice existed when an attorney was both the trial counsel and a necessary witness holding trial counsel violated its duty to disclose information that impacted both the credibility and competence of a key prosecution witness to a drug trial holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding witness refusal to disclose place of employment noting that defendant had obtained information regarding witness background that enabled defense counsel to crossexamine witness fully and effectively without the employment information