In the 1998 case of Tommy David Strickler v. Fred W. Greene, Strickler, a death row inmate in Virginia, petitioned for habeas corpus relief on grounds that the prosecution had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence during his trial - a violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963). The undisclosed evidence consisted of notes from interviews with the key witness which could have been used to challenge her credibility. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Strickler's claim by a 7-2 vote stating that while there was indeed a Brady violation due to nondisclosure of material evidence favorable to him; he did not meet both components necessary for establishing such violations: suppressed after request by prosecution and prejudice ensued as result thereof. The court held that even if this information had been disclosed at trial it would not have created reasonable probability sufficient enough for different outcome given overwhelming untainted proof against him.

In the dissenting opinion for Tommy David Strickler v. Fred W. Greene, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to recognize how significant the withheld evidence could have been in influencing the jury's verdict. He contended that if this information had been disclosed during trial, there would have been a reasonable probability of a different outcome - one more favorable to Strickler. The undisclosed evidence included notes from an interview with key witness Anne Stoltzfus which suggested she may not have seen what she claimed and her identification of Strickler might be unreliable due to suggestive police procedures used during her interviews. This raised doubts about both her credibility and reliability as a witness against Strickler, potentially undermining his conviction for murder and robbery charges based largely on her testimony.