## Facts

- Antonio Vilardi was prosecuted for participating in a Brooklyn scheme to place pipe bombs under a pizzeria and a nearby laundromat.
- The People alleged the laundromat device exploded, supporting a charge of arson in the first degree, which requires proof of damage caused by an explosion.
- In a prior trial of alleged co-conspirators, an NYPD Bomb Squad officer’s initial written report stated that a thorough basement inspection revealed no evidence of an explosion.
- Before Vilardi’s trial, defense counsel specifically requested all reports by ballistics, firearms, and explosive experts concerning the laundromat incident.
- The prosecution disclosed multiple reports but did not disclose the officer’s initial report.
- At trial, the officer testified; because the defense lacked the initial report, it did not cross-examine him on his earlier “no evidence of explosion” conclusion or argue failure of proof on the explosion element.
- Vilardi was convicted of arson in the first degree, attempted arson in the first degree, and conspiracy.
- Post-trial, the defense discovered the undisclosed report and moved to vacate the judgment based on suppression of exculpatory evidence.

## Issues

1. Under New York due process, what materiality standard governs suppressed exculpatory evidence when the defense made a specific request: the federal “reasonable probability” test or a more defendant-protective “reasonable possibility” test?
2. Applying the proper state-law standard, did nondisclosure of the specifically requested bomb-squad report require vacatur of Vilardi’s first-degree arson conviction?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the order vacating the first-degree arson conviction and ordering a new trial limited to that count.
- The court held that, under New York law, when the defense makes a specific request for exculpatory material, materiality is shown by a “reasonable possibility” that the nondisclosure contributed to the verdict.
- The undisclosed report was exculpatory as to an element of first-degree arson and had sufficient potential to affect the jury’s determination under the “reasonable possibility” standard.
- The remaining convictions were left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence; the materiality inquiry under New York due process depends in part on the nature of the defense request.
- When the defense makes no request or only a general request, New York applies the federal “reasonable probability” materiality standard.
- When the defense makes a specific request for identified exculpatory evidence, New York applies a more defendant-protective standard: whether there is a reasonable possibility that the failure to disclose contributed to the verdict.
- Evidence is materially exculpatory when it bears directly on an element the People must prove and could be used to impeach or contradict a key prosecution witness on that element.

## Conclusion

Because the defense specifically requested expert reports concerning the alleged explosion and the prosecution failed to disclose a report stating there was no evidence of an explosion—an element-critical fact for first-degree arson—the conviction on that count was vacated and a new trial was required under New York’s “reasonable possibility” materiality standard.


People v. Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67 (N.Y. 1990)