In the case of Weary v. Cain, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Michael Wearry who was convicted for a murder committed in Louisiana in 1998 based on weak evidence and testimonies from jailhouse informants with incentives to testify against him. The court found that prosecutors had withheld significant exculpatory evidence which could have impacted the outcome of his trial significantly. This included information about discrepancies between medical examiner reports and witness statements regarding time of death, as well as inconsistencies within informant's accounts themselves - some even contradicting each other or changing their stories over time. The court concluded that this failure by prosecution violated Wearry’s constitutional right to due process under Brady v Maryland (1963), which requires disclosure of all material exculpatory evidence to defense before trial begins.

In the dissenting opinion for Wearry v. Cain, Justice Alito argued that the majority's decision to overturn Sammie Wearry's conviction was premature and inappropriate. He contended that there were still unresolved issues in lower courts regarding whether or not certain evidence would have affected the outcome of Wearry’s trial. Additionally, he criticized the majority for failing to give proper deference to state court decisions and intervening in a case where they had limited knowledge of all relevant facts. Justice Alito also expressed concern about setting a precedent whereby federal courts could easily override state court judgments based on incomplete information or understanding of complex cases.