evidence because polygraph results would have been inadmissible at trial, even for impeachment purposes). The Government responds that the value of Del Rosario’s later statement inculpating Zoletta (and thereby exculpating Perez) would have been undercut by the fact that Del Rosario’s initial statement regarding Perez was fully and powerfully corroborated by Perez’s passport and travel itinerary as well as the testimony of Uy and Almiranez. Del Rosario’s statement is therefore neither essential to Perez’s defense nor material evidence warranting a new trial. We agree. See United States v. Messerlian, 832 F.2d 778, 795 (3d Cir.1987) (finding no Brady violation for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence that was not credible); see also Buehl v. Vaughn, 166 F.3d 163, 181 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Landano v. Rafferty, 856 F.2d 569, 572 (3d
holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury holding the death penalty proportionate where the nineteenyearold defendant failed to establish that he was immature at the time of the murder and the record established that he was the mastermind behind the murder holding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the prosecution depended upon a showing that defendants fingerprints were left on the murder weapon during the commission of the crime holding undisclosed statement that someone other than the defendant possessed the murder weapon three weeks after the murder was not material exculpatory evidence in light of this overwhelming evidence that buehl had the murder weapon at the time of the killings and that he was the murderer holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene