Tiffany Industries, Inc. v. Grant

disapproving of a prosecutor's suggestion that he might be "personally disadvantaged" if it were determined that a government witness had disregarded the truthful testimony proviso of his plea agreement | disapproving of a prosecutor’s suggestion that he might be “personally disadvantaged” if it were determined that a government witness had disregarded the truthful testimony proviso of his plea agreement | remanding without opinion for further consideration in light of Bagley where appeals court stated that “[i]n order to be material, evidence suppressed must have been admissible at trial” | “Inadmissible evidence is by definition not material [for Brady purposes], because it never would have reached the jury and therefore could not have affected the trial outcome.” | “Bankers has alleged that it has been deprived of various sums of money by the defendants’ activities. There is no question that this constituted ‘injur[y] in [its] business or property...’” | “Two acts in the same criminal episode may establish a pattern of racketeering” | “plaintiff ... must prove that defendants’ violation caused the injury” | "The requirement that the injury be to the plaintiffs business or property means that the plaintiff must show a proprietary type of damage. For example, a person physically injured in a fire whose origin was arson is not given a right to recover for his personal injuries” | in light of the Court’s decision in Bagley, supra | granting certiorari and vacating the judgment below