PER CURIAM.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Courts denial of habeas relief based on its speculation that the prosecutions failure to turn over the results of a polygraph examination of a key witness might have had an adverse effect on pretrial preparation by the defense. The Court of Appeals assumed, and the parties do not dispute, that the results were inadmissible under state law both for substantive purposes as well as for impeachment. The decision below is a misapplication of our Brady jurisprudence, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and we accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.

On August 1, 1981, respondent Dwayne Bartholomew robbed a laundromat in Tacoma, Washington. In the course of the robbery, the laundromat attendant was shot and killed. Two shots were fired: one hit the attendant in the head, the second lodged in a counter near the victims body. From the beginning, respondent admitted that he committed the robbery and that the shots came from his gun.

The only issue at trial was whether respondent was guilty of aggravated first-degree murder, which requires proof of premeditation; or of first-degree (felony) murder, which does not. Respondents defense was that the gun, a single action revolver (one that must be cocked manually before each shot), [ WOOD v. BARTHOLOMEW, ___ U.S. ___ (1995), 2] discharged by accident - twice.

In addition to the physical evidence concerning the operation of the gun, the prosecutions evidence consisted of the testimony of respondents brother, Rodney Bartholomew, and of Rodneys girlfriend, Tracy Dormady. Both Rodney and Tracy testified that on the day of the crime they had gone to the laundromat in question to do their laundry, and that respondent was sitting in his car in the parking lot when they arrived. While waiting for their laundry, Rodney sat with his brother in the car. Rodney testified that respondent told him that he intended to rob the laundromat and "leave no witnesses." According to their testimony, Rodney and Tracy left the laundromat soon after the conversation and went to Tracys house. Respondent arrived at the house a short time later, and when Tracy asked respondent if he had killed the attendant respondent said "he had put two bullets in the kids head." Tracy also testified that she had heard respondent say that he intended to leave no witnesses. Both Rodney and Tracys testimony was consistent with their pretrial statements to the police. State v. Bartholomew, 98 Wash. 2d 173, 176-178, 654 P.2d 1170, 1173-1174 (1982).

Respondent testified in his own defense. He admitted threatening the victim with his gun and forcing him to lie down on the floor. Respondent said, however, that while he was removing money from the cash drawer his gun accidently fired, discharging a bullet into the victims head. Respondent further claimed that the gun went off a second time while he was running away. Respondent denied telling Rodney or Tracy that he intended to leave no witnesses. According to his testimony, moreover, Rodney had assisted in the robbery by convincing the attendant to open the laundromats door after it had closed for the night, although Rodney left before the crime was committed. Ibid. In closing argument the defense sought to discredit Rodney and Tracys testimony by suggesting that they were lying about the extent of Rodneys participation in the crime. 34 F.3d 870, 872 (CA9 1994).

At the sentencing phase of the trial (respondent was sentenced to death but his sentence was overturned on appeal and he was resentenced to life imprisonment without the [ WOOD v. BARTHOLOMEW, ___ U.S. ___ (1995), 3] possibility of parole), the prosecutions first witness was respondents cellmate, Stanley Bell. Bell testified that respondent told him that he ma