More on Brady

No sooner had I finished reading the ABA Journal's story about Connick v. Thompson, quoting law prof Rachel Barkow, when scotusblog, via Lyle Denniston, was reporting that the SCOTUS had granted cert in another Brady case--again out of New Orleans.  Denniston mentions a series of alleged Brady violations from the New Orleans office, including the seminal case Kyles v. Whitley.  It seems likely that office has some problems.  But I have wondered if even prosecutors acting in good faith might have trouble recognizing exculpatory evidence, due to litigation psychosis or just a difficulty seeing things from the defense perspective.  Keith Findley of Wisconsin has written about the role of "tunnel vision" in wrongful convictions.  Do some prosecutors have trouble recognizing that a piece of evidence that does not fit the government's narrative might actually point to an alternate explanation?  I have toyed with the idea of creating a Brady exercise in which students playing the roles of prosecutors and defense attorneys would be provided with certain (different) pieces of information about a case.  The goal would be to illustrate how a seemingly unimportant (yet exculpatory) piece of information in the prosecutor's possession might, when disclosed to the defense, prove extremely important.  I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts.