ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HELD IN BRADY V. MARYLAND (1963) THAT A PROSECUTOR'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE VIOLATES THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, MANY ISSUES HAVE BEEN LEFT UNRESOLVED. TO DEFINE THESE ISSUES AND REACH A CONSENSUS ON THEIR POSSIBLE RESOLUTION, THE CASE LAW ON PROSECUTORIAL DISCLOSURE IS DISCUSSED. THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. AGURS (1976) PRESENTS SOME OF THE PREFERABLE APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED IN BRADY. PRIOR DECISIONS HAD ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEFENDANT MUST BEAR A HEAVY BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE PROSECUTOR'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION; THE AGURS DECISION ADDED A STANDARD OF MATERIALITY FOR EVIDENCE WHICH IF NOT DISCLOSED WOULD JUSTIFY A NEW TRIAL. THE COURT SPECIFIED THAT A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE IS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR A NEW TRIAL, BUT THAT THE FAILURE TO MAKE A REQUEST WILL CAUSE A COURT TO APPLY A MORE STRINGENT TEST OF MATERIALITY UNLESS THE PROSECUTION USES PERJURED TESTIMONY. IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST GRANT A NEW TRIAL IF HE BELIEVES THAT THE UNDISCLOSED EVIDENCE CREATES A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT OTHERWISE DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS FELT THAT THE COURT SHOULD APPLY A MORE LENIENT TEST IF THE PROSECUTION EITHER HAS USED PERJURED TESTIMONY OR FAILED TO HONOR A SPECIFIC REQUEST. HOWEVER, THE COURT IN AGURS INDICATED THAT THE PROSECUTION DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO OPEN ITS FILES TO THE DEFENDANT. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)