Under what conditions can failing to disclose exculpatory evidence lead to the reversal of a conviction?

The correct understanding focuses on the conditions under which the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence may lead to the reversal of a conviction. When we consider the nature of exculpatory evidence, it is defined as evidence that is favorable to the defendant and could potentially exonerate them, or at least lessen their culpability.

For a failure to disclose such evidence to result in a reversal, two critical elements must be present: first, the evidence must indeed be favorable to the defendant – something that could help their case or support their innocence. Second, there must be a demonstration of prejudice, meaning that the undisclosed evidence could have reasonably impacted the outcome of the trial. This reflects the legal standard set forth in cases such as Brady v. Maryland, where the Supreme Court ruled that withholding exculpatory evidence violates the defendant's right to a fair trial if it can be shown that this lack of disclosure caused harm or a significant disadvantage to the defense.

In summary, failing to disclose exculpatory evidence can lead to a conviction being reversed when the evidence is favorable to the defendant and prejudicial to the outcome of the case.