Citing our decision in Crews, 640 A.2d at 406, the Commonwealth echoes ADA Fisk’s contention that unsuccessful leads and unsubstantiated gossip are not evidence favorable to the accused that invokes the protections of Brady. Initially, we determine that the entry has clear exculpatory value given that it implicates another individual in the criminal role assigned to Appellant. Nevertheless, the failure to disclose is not prejudicial. As indicated, Detective Fasano refused to reveal the identity of his informant, which could have allowed determination of the source of the information, evidence that then could have been presented at trial. Absent an identity, the statement is an unsubstantiated rumor, which under Crews is not subject to Brady protections. See Crews, 640 A.2d at 406 (<HOLDING>). C. Wing Tsang’s statement The next challenged
holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses prior statements relating to their trial testimony holding that evidence is not required to support an an assertion relating to discovery when evidence is unnecessary to decide the matter holding that a statute is not ex post facto when it created an alteration in rules of evidence   which served only to prevent use of certain evidence relating to the alleged victims credibility and had no bearing upon evidence relating to the crime itself holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material holding based on parcrimp 305b1a that prosecution is not obligated to reveal evidence relating to fruitless leads followed by investigators