This is a close case. The eyewitness identifications, though occurring under seemingly questionable circumstances, were nonetheless consistent despite thorough cross-examination. We are not certain that timely disclosure of the Amoco receipts would have resulted in a different result. But that is not the standard. We need to be convinced only that "the government's evidentiary suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial." Kyles [v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995)](internal quotation marks omitted). Of this we are persuaded.
Congrats to Jean and to state trial and appellate counsel for preserving this federal issue for further review. I bet it's not the only case where the wrong standard was applied.