in our understanding of psychology had proven that separate coüld not be equal. And that is not what we do here. - Legislative Defendants’ characterization of the empirical evidence introduced by Plaintiffs’ as a “smorgasbord” also suggests that Legislative Defendants view the sheer number of analyses upon which Plaintiffs’ rely as rendering their claims judicially unmanageable. Leg. Defs.’ Br. 2. But when a variety of different pieces of evidence, empirical or otherwise, point to the same conclusion — as is the case here— courts have greater confidence in the correctness of the conclusion because even if one piece of evidence is subsequently found infirm other probative evidence remains. See, e.g., Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 293, 296, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Even if none of the analyses introduced by
holding that failure to request continuance waives complaint that state withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of brady holding that brady v maryland 373 us 83 83 sct 1194 10 led2d 215 1963 creates no government duty to disclose names of witnesses holding that a lie by defendant to government regarding his past criminal history was exculpatory material under brady holding that exculpatory evidence withheld by government was not material for purposes of brady v maryland 373 us 83 83 sct 1194 10 led2d 215 1963 when there was considerable forensic and other physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime holding the right to counsel extends to preliminary hearing where defendant enters a plea and such idea is put into evidence at subsequent trial white v maryland 373 us 59 83 sct 1050 10 led2d 193 to be retroactive