here would permit a finding that there was in essence a single conspiracy with two interdependent illegal objectives, each of which materially furthered the achievement of the other, the first objective being to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute it and/or to distribute it, contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the second objective being to "launder” proceeds of the methamphetamine so distributed, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), and/or § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i), and/or § 1957(a). Because conspiring for the purpose of the first objective is denounced by 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiring for the purpose of the second objective is denounced by a different statute, namely 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), two offenses (one for conspiring for the first 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)
holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession holding prosecutions failure to disclose promise of leniency to witness provided in exchange for that witnesss testimony violated due process holding that prosecutions duty to present all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled when it became known the government failed to disclose an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in return for his testimony holding that the fact that a prosecutor afforded favorable treatment to a government witness standing alone does not establish the existence of an underlying promise of leniency in exchange for testimony 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