of petitioner's proposed amended petition which he has not withdrawn pertains to his claim that a tape was provided to counsel for two of his co-defendants during the discovery period in preparation for their retrial after the hung jury as to them in the first trial. . (The latter two defendants subsequently entered into plea agreements, so no later trial was conducted.) That tape was apparently not provided to petitioner or his counsel in discovery leading to the first trial, at which petitioner was convicted. (Pet. Br. at 11.) We have reviewed the transcript of the tape, and it is our firm conclusion that the failure to produce it does not meet the standard for granting a new trial on Brady grounds. See Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct.
holding that suppression by government of evidence favorable to accused upon request violates due process when evidence is material to guilt holding that suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request by the defense violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irre spective of the good faith of the prosecution 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 that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process when evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution holding that suppression by prosecutor of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where evidence is material to either guilt or punishment