the State’s accusations.” 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973). For this reason, the Chambers court held that Mississippi’s strict rules of evidence, which prevented Leon Chambers from cross-examining a witness who had confessed to the same crime and prevented him from entering into evidence other admissions of the witness’s guilt, violated Chambers’s right to due process by effectively denying him a fair trial. Id. at 285, 302. Chambers recognizes the proposition that criminal defendants possess a “due process right to have clearly exculpatory evidence presented to the jury, at least when there is no strong countervailing systemic interest that justifies its exclusion.” United States v. Herman, 589 F.2d 1191, 1204 (3d Cir. 1978). 94, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>), recognize that a major purpose of a criminal
holding that a lie by defendant to government regarding his past criminal history was exculpatory material under brady holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding that a defendant cannot present an effective case when the government suppresses material exculpatory evidence