MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this death penalty case, the State of Ohio, through the Respondent, Warden Margaret Bagley, appeals the District Court’s new trial order granting William T. Montgomery’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and its subsequent denial of the State’s motion to reconsider that order. See Montgomery v. Bagley, 482 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Ohio 2007). The District Court issued the writ based on a finding that the State, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), withheld an exculpatory, pretrial police report that would likely have altered the outcome of the case — a pretrial report that several witnesses had seen one of Montgomery’s purported victims alive four days after the State alleged that he had killed her. Montgomery cross-appeals the District Court’s denial of his petition on several alternative grounds, including the state trial court’s failure to grant a change of venue despite negative pretrial publicity, the State’s failure to disclose certain other Brady material, and the trial court’s failure to dismiss an incompetent juror.

In this capital case, the State is unable to effectively rebut three crucial propositions that control the outcome: (1) the withheld report is exculpatory and should have been disclosed before trial, (2) it is “material” because, if true, it would likely change the outcome of the trial, and (3) the ultimate determination concerning the truth of the withheld report — i.e., what actually happened — is for the state courts to resolve. Because, like the District Court, we believe that the withheld, exculpatory report “undermines confidence in the verdict” as to both the guilt and sentencing phases of Montgomery’s trial, we hold that Montgomery deserves a new trial where all of the relevant evidence is considered by the jury. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the District Court’s issuance of the writ and later denial of the State’s motion to reconsider. We pretermit the remaining issues raised in Montgomery’s cross-appeal.

In its petition for rehearing, the State claims that “fundamental factual errors” formed the “underpinnings of [our] decision.” Pet. at 1. We disagree.