Which statement regarding the Brady line of cases is true?

The statement about the Brady line of cases being true is that materiality determines the need for reversal in a case. This is essential to understand because Brady v. Maryland established that the prosecution must disclose evidence that could exonerate the defendant or that could be favorable to their case. However, not every failure to disclose evidence leads to a reversal. The court must assess whether the omitted evidence was materially significant to the case. If the evidence in question could have affected the outcome of the trial, then a reversal may be warranted. Thus, materiality is a critical factor in deciding the implications of a Brady violation.

In the context of the other options, it’s important to note that materiality being never questioned would imply a uniform outcome regardless of the nature of the withheld evidence, which is not the case. The reality is that each case is unique and assessed on its individual circumstances. Furthermore, not all cases are reversed following a Brady violation, as the impact of the withheld evidence is evaluated, so a blanket reversal isn't accurate. Additionally, while the Michael Morton Act also addresses similar issues regarding the disclosure of evidence, it has a distinct legal framework and principles that differ from those established in the Brady line of cases. Understanding these nuances affirms why the statement