Chinn v. Shoop

Chinn v. Shoop asks what a criminal defendant must show to win a Brady claim, which says prosecutors cannot withhold favorable evidence. Chinn says the Sixth Circuit used the wrong test by requiring proof that the suppressed evidence more likely than not would have changed the trial result.

The case has not been scheduled for oral argument, so there is no Supreme Court vote or argument recap yet; the petition says the Sixth Circuit required Chinn to prove it was "more probable than not" the evidence would have changed the result.

The answer could affect defendants who discover after trial that prosecutors allegedly hid helpful evidence. For example, it could shape how hard it is for a prisoner to win a new trial based on undisclosed witness or forensic material.

The next sign of movement would be oral argument or another scheduling order from the Court. No decision window is available yet.

The dispute is whether Brady requires proof that hidden evidence probably would have changed the verdict, or a less demanding showing.

The standard could affect prisoners seeking new trials after learning prosecutors allegedly withheld favorable witness, police, or forensic evidence.

Watch for oral argument to be scheduled, or for another Court order showing whether the justices will hear the case.