with whom Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Powell join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Petitioner was convicted of murder in the Illinois state courts and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the conviction and sentence by a divided court. 42 Ill. 2d 73, 246 N. E. 2d 299 (1969). This Court holds that the imposition of the death sentence violated the principle established today in Furman v. Georgia, ante, p. 238, and that the sentence must be vacated, but the Court upholds the underlying conviction. I agree with the majority that the sentence is invalid and *801join Part V of the opinion of the Court. I also agree that the introduction of the shotgun into evidence at petitioner’s trial did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.1
But, I believe that in failing to disclose to petitioner certain evidence that might well have been of substantial assistance to the defense, the State denied him a fair trial.
The opinion of the Court relates at some length the facts relating to the crime with which petitioner was charged, the circumstances of his arrest, the course of the trial, and the developments at the post-conviction hearing. As these facts are complicated and quite confus*802ing, I have not reiterated them here. Rather, I have emphasized those that seem to me to be particularly important and I have added several details that are omitted from the Court’s opinion.
Two interrelated defenses were raised against the charge of murder — alibi and misidentification. Petitioner’s theory of the case was that he was not at the scene when the murder was committed and that those witnesses who testified that they saw him there were confusing him with someone else.
Only two witnesses affirmatively asserted at trial that they saw the murder and that they could identify petitioner as the assailant. They were Patricia Hill, a waitress in the victim’s bar, and Henley Powell, a customer. Aside from their testimony, the only other evidence introduced against petitioner related to statements that he allegedly made two days after the murder.
There is a problem with the eyewitness testimony of Powell that did not become apparent until the post-conviction hearing in the trial court. At trial he testified as follows:
“The defendant (indicating) came into the tavern while I was at the table. I first saw him when he walked in the door with a shotgun. I was sitting at the table along the wall. I was facing where the bartender was standing and I also had a view of the man that walked in the door. I was looking to the west.” Abs. 32.
But at the post-conviction hearing it was discovered that police officers who had investigated the murder possessed a statement by one Charles Mayer, who had been sitting with Powell at a table in the bar, which contained a diagram indicating that Powell was seated in a direction opposite that indicated in his trial testi*803mony. This diagram was never made available to defense counsel.2
Donald O’Brien, who had also been seated at Powell and Mayer’s table, testified at trial and contradicted the testimony of both Powell and Patricia Hill. Although O’Brien admitted that he did not actually see the shooting because his back was to the bar, he was certain that petitioner was not the man who had been ejected from the victim’s bar only an hour before the killing. O’Brien’s testimony greatly undercut the apparent retaliatory motive that the prosecution attributed to petitioner.3
*804Because of the contradictory testimony of those persons who were present at the scene of the murder, the statements allegedly made by the petitioner after the crime were crucial to the prosecution’s case. The key prosecution witness in this regard was Virgle Sanders. He testified that two days after the murder he was in the Ponderosa Tavern, that petitioner (whom he knew as “Slick”) was there also, and that petitioner said “[s]ome-thing about it’s season or open season on bartenders or something like that.” Abs. 44. The bartender also testified that he recognized petitioner as being present at the same time as Sanders. And the owner of the tavern stated that he gave petitioner and petitioner’s friend a short ride in his automobile, at the end of which the friend mentioned something about “trouble with the bartender.” Abs. 52.
After his trial and conviction petitioner learned that five days after the murder, Sanders gave a statement to the police in which he said that he had met “Slick” for the first time about six months before he spoke to him in the Ponderosa Tavern. As the Court notes, it would have been impossible for Sanders to have met the petitioner at the time specified, because petitioner was in federal prison at that time. At the post-conviction hearing, Sanders said that he was not positive when he first met the man known as “Slick,” but that he definitely knew it was before Christmas 1961. Petitioner was not released from federal custody until March 1962. When confronted with this fact, Sanders indicated that it was impossible that petitioner was the man with whom he had spoken in the Ponderosa Tavern. Abs. 296. Sanders’ trial identification was further impeached at the post-trial hearing by testimony that on *805the day of trial he told police officers that petitioner was approximately 30 or 40 pounds lighter than he remembered “Slick” being. Abs. 294.
Sanders’ testimony that petitioner and “Slick” were not one and the same was corroborated at the hearing. The reason that Sanders could remember the first time that he had met “Slick” was that “Slick” had been involved in a scuffle with one William Thompson. Thompson testified at the hearing that he remembered the altercation, that he knew “Slick,” that prior to the trial he had told police officers that petitioner was not “Slick,” and that he remained certain that petitioner and “Slick” were different people. Finally, Sanders’ testimony was corroborated by Delbert Jones, the owner of the tavern where “Slick” and Thompson scuffled. Jones testified that he was certain that petitioner was not the man known as “Slick.”
The fact is that Thompson and Jones were both familiar with one James E. Watts, whom they knew as “Slick,” and who looked very much like the petitioner. The record makes clear that the police suspected Watts as the murderer and assigned a lieutenant to search for him. A raid of Jones’ bar was even made in the hope of finding this suspect.
Sanders’ testimony at the post-conviction hearing indicates that it was Watts who bragged about the murder, not petitioner. It is true that the bartender and the owner of the Ponderosa Tavern testified at trial that it was petitioner who was in the bar with Sanders, but the bartender had never seen “Slick” before, and the owner was drinking the entire afternoon. Furthermore, the fact remains that petitioner and Watts look very much alike.
Petitioner urges that when the State did not reveal to him Sanders’ statement about meeting “Slick” at an earlier time and the corroborative statements of *806Thompson and Jones, it denied him due process. The Court answers this by saying that the statements were not material. It is evident from the foregoing that the statements were not merely material to the defense, they were absolutely critical. I find myself in complete agreement with Justice Schaeffer’s dissent in the Illinois Supreme Court:
“The defendant’s conviction rests entirely upon identification testimony. The facts developed at the post-conviction hearing seriously impeached, if indeed they did not destroy, Sanders’s trial testimony. Had those facts, and the identifications of ‘Slick’ Watts by Thompson and Jones, been available at the trial, the jury may well have been unwilling to act upon the identifications of Patricia Hill and Henley Powell. Far more is involved in this case, in my opinion, than ‘the following up of useless leads and discussions with immaterial witnesses.’ Certainly if Sanders’s identification was material, the . . . testimony of the other witnesses which destroyed that identification [was] also material. Consequently, I believe that the State’s nondisclosure denied the defendant the fundamental fairness guaranteed by the constitution. . . .” 42 Ill. 2d, at 88-89, 246 N. E. 2d, at 308.4
*807Petitioner also urges that the failure of the prosecution to disclose the information concerning where the eyewitness Powell was sitting when he allegedly saw petitioner is another instance of suppression of evidence in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Had this been the prosecution’s only error, I would join the Court in finding the evidence to be immaterial. But if this evidence is considered together with other evidence that was suppressed, it must be apparent that the failure of the prosecution to disclose it contributed to the denial of due process.
Even if material exculpatory evidence was not made available to petitioner, the State argues that because petitioner did not demand to see the evidence, he cannot now complain about nondisclosure. This argument is disingenuous at best.
Prior to trial, petitioner moved for discovery of all statements given to the prosecutor or the police by any witness possessing information relevant to the case. Abs. 5. In explaining why such a broad motion was made, petitioner’s counsel stated that, “We want to circumvent the possibility that a witness gets on the stand and says, 'Yes, I made a written statement,’ and then the State’s Attorney says, 'But no, we don’t have it in our possession,’ or they say, 'It’s in the possession of Orlando Wilson [Superintendent of Police, Chicago, Ill.],’ or 'The Chief of Police of Lansing.’ ” Abs. 8. In *808response to the motion, the prosecutor guaranteed defense counsel and the court that he would supply defense counsel with statements made either to the police or to the State’s Attorney by witnesses who were called to testify at trial. Ibid. Based on this representation, the motion for discovery was denied. Never was there any implication by the prosecutor that his guarantee was in any way dependent upon petitioner’s making repeated and specific requests for such statements after each witness testified at trial. The prosecutor’s guarantee certainly covered Sanders’ statement. As for the statements of the bartender and owner of the Ponderosa Tavern and the statement and diagram of Charles Mayer, petitioner clearly demanded to see these things before trial. The prosecution took the position that it was bound to reveal only the statements of witnesses who testified. Hence, it is hard to imagine what sort of further demand petitioner might have made. Moreover, the very fact that petitioner made his motion for extensive discovery placed the prosecution on notice that the defense wished to see all statements by any witness that might be exculpatory. The motion served “the valuable office of flagging the importance of the evidence for the defense and thus impos[ifig] on the prosecutor a duty to make a careful check of his files.” United States v. Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138, 147 (CA2 1968).
In my view, both Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), require that the conviction in this case be reversed. Napue establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated “when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected.” Id., at 269. And Brady holds that suppression of material evidence requires a new trial “irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Supra, at 87. There can be no doubt that there was suppression of evidence by the State and *809that the evidence that the State relied on was “false” in the sense that it was incomplete and misleading.
Both before and during the trial the prosecutor met with Sanders and went over the statement that he had given the police five days after the murder. Abs. 301, 315. Thus, it is apparent that the prosecutor not only knew of the statement, but was actively using it to prepare his case. There was also testimony at the post-conviction hearing from the prosecution that it had discussed the location where Powell was sitting when he allegedly saw the murder. While the prosecutor could not remember whether or not he actually had Mayer’s statement and diagram in his possession, he had some recollection that before trial he was informed of exactly where everyone at Powell’s table was sitting. Abs. 323. No attempt was ever made at trial to communicate this information to the defense.
Moreover, seated at the prosecutor’s table throughout the trial was Police Lieutenant Turbin, who had investigated the case and who was assisting the prosecution. At the post-conviction hearing, he testified that throughout the trial he was not only aware of Sanders’ statement and Mayer’s diagram, but also that he had them in his file. He made no attempt to communicate his information to the prosecutor or to remind him about the evidence.
When the State possesses information that might well exonerate a defendant in a criminal case, it has an affirmative duty to disclose that information. While frivolous information and useless leads can be ignored, if evidence is clearly relevant and helpful to the defense, it must be disclosed.
Obviously some burden is placed on the shoulders of the prosecutor when he is required to be responsible for those persons who are directly assisting him in bringing an accused to justice. But this burden is the essence *810of due process of law. It is the State that tries a man, and it is the State that must insure that the trial is fair. “A citizen has the right to expect fair dealing from his government, see Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535, and this entails . . . treating the government as a unit rather than as an amalgam of separate entities.” S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 406 U. S. 1, 10 (1972). “The prosecutor’s office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government.” Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, 154 (1972).5 See also Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257, 262 (1971); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 (1972).
My reading of the case leads me to conclude that the prosecutor knew that evidence existed that might help the defense, that the defense had asked to see it, and that it was never disclosed. It makes no difference whatever whether the evidence that was suppressed was found in the file of a police officer who directly aided the prosecution or in the file of the prosecutor himself. When the prosecutor consciously uses police officers as part of the prosecutorial team, those officers may not conceal evidence that the prosecutor himself would have a duty to disclose. It would be unconscionable to permit a prosecutor to adduce evidence demonstrating guilt without also requiring that he bear the responsibility of producing all known and relevant evidence tending to show innocence.
1 find, the constitutional question presented by the introduction of this evidence to be much harder than the majority seems to. It was uneontradicted at trial that the weapon introduced against petitioner had no bearing on the crime with which he was charged. It was, in fact, clear that the shotgun admitted into evidence was a 16-gauge gun, whereas the murder weapon was a 12-gauge gun. Despite the fact that the prosecution conceded this in a pretrial bill of particulars, it did everything possible to obfuscate the fact that the weapon admitted into evidence was not the murder weapon. This was highly improper. The record also indicates that the trial judge was confused as to why he thought the weapon should be admitted. At one point he said, “There was testimony here that this was a shotgun killing. And I can see nothing wrong if they say that this defendant, who will be identified by other people, was apprehended with this gun.” Abstract of Record (Abs.), 65. If the trial judge meant to imply that because the crime was committed with a shotgun, it was sufficient to prove that the petitioner possessed any shotgun, whether or not it was the murder weapon, he surely erred. But it is impossible to tell from the record in this case precisely what was intended, or whether the judge confused the jury when he admitted the weapon. Although this highly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence was introduced, and although the prosecution did its best to lead the jury to believe that there was a relationship between the murder weapon and the shotgun in evidence, the fact that petitioner’s counsel explained to the jury that the two weapons were not identical is, on the very closest balance, enough to warrant our finding that the jury was not improperly-misled as to the nature of the evidence before it.
It is true, as the Court states, that following the shooting Powell followed the assailant into the street, but it is also true that he never got closer than 50 to 60 feet of the murderer. Abs. 32. The strength of his testimony lay in the alleged opportunity he had for close observation of the murderer while the crime was committed.
Footnote 6 of the Court’s opinion implies that during the trial the prosecution turned over Mayer’s diagram to defense counsel. But there is absolutely no support for this implication in the record. While it is true that the diagram was drawn on the back of the original statement given by Mayer to the police, there is nothing to indicate that it was ever reeopied and made a part of any reproductions of Mayer’s statement. All indications are that it was not reproduced. At the post-conviction hearing the following testimony was adduced: the police officer who aided the prosecution at trial indicated that he had the original diagram in his file, Abs. 24A-249; the two lawyers who had represented petitioner at trial both swore that they were given only Mayer’s statement, not his diagram, Abs. 307, 328; and the prosecutor testified that he did not know for sure whether he gave the diagram to defense counsel, but that it was certain that he did not supply the diagram if it was not in his file. Abs. 324. Since the diagram was in the police officer’s file, not the prosecutor’s, it is clear that it was never made available to defense counsel, even though the prosecutor was aware of its contents. See infra, at 809.
The Court asserts that O’Brien may have been drunk. His testimony at trial made it clear beyond doubt that when the victim ejected the man alleged to be the petitioner from the bar, this wit*804ness was perfectly sober. Later, especially after the killing, the witness drank heavily and became intoxicated. No one contradicted this at trial.
Chief Judge Friendly has noted that when the prosecution fails to disclose evidence whose high value to the defense could not have escaped the prosecutor’s attention, “almost by definition the evidence is highly material.” United States v. Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138, 147 (CA2 1968). See also United States ex rel. Meers v. Wilkins, 326 F. 2d 135 (CA2 1964).
The materiality of the undisclosed evidence in this case cannot be seriously doubted. The State based its case primarily on the eyewitness identifications of petitioner by a witness and patron in the bar. Testimony of this sort based on in-court identification is often viewed with suspicion by juries. See McGowan, Constitutional In*807terpretation and Criminal Identification, 12 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 235, 241-242 (1970). That testimony in this case was subject to serious question: indeed, petitioner premised his defense in large part on a theory of misidentification. Coupled with the contradictory statement made by O’Brien (see supra, at 803), the evidence showing that one of the witnesses may not have had an adequate opportunity to observe and that petitioner may have been confused with another person named “Slick” would certainly have been material to the defense’s presentation of its case.
In the recent decision in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972), holding that use immunity was co-extensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Court noted that prosecutors may be responsible for actions of police officers enlisted to aid a prosecution.