and evidence tending to impeach a state witness. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Exculpatory or impeachment evidence is material for the purpose of Brady “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375. Several notes about the elements of a Brady claim are relevant for our purposes. First, with respect to the “suppression” prong of the Brady test, the prosecution team generally is considered a unitary entity, and favorable information possessed by the police but unknown to the prosecutor is nonetheless subject to the Brady test. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Secondly, the question of when evidence is
holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation holding impeachment evidence falls within the brady rule holding that the brady rule encompasses evidence known only to police investigators but not the prosecutor holding that an individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the governments behalf in the case including the police holding prosecutor had no brady duty to disclose that a certain witness could not positively identify the defendant