------------------------------------------------------------
PROPST, District Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the court's opinion, except as to the holding in
the last paragraph of section IV.D.2. There, the court holds that
the district court erred in assessing the evidence's materiality
from a post-trial perspective rather than from the perspective of
a reasonable official in the position of Tate, Ikner, and Benson.
I think that the district court implicitly, if not explicitly,
considered "whether every reasonable official in the position of
Tate, Ikner, and Benson would understand that withholding those
particular pieces of evidence would undermine confidence in the
outcome of McMillian's trial." It is hard to see how a holding
that evidence is "clearly exculpatory" could suggest anything else.