In United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the defense requested information of any deals, promises, or inducements made to two government witnesses. Despite this request, the government failed to disclose that these two witnesses had been paid for their testimony. The court in Bagley stated that there had been no direct restriction on the scope of cross-examination. The defense was free to cross-examine the witnesses on any subject including possible bias or motives to lie. (Bagley, supra, at p. 677, at p. 491.) The United States Supreme Court ruled that, in ascertaining whether the prosecution improperly suppressed evidence favorable to a defendant, such evidence shall be found material "only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." This standard of materiality applies regardless of whether the defense specifically or generally requested the evidence or did not request the evidence at all. Id. at 682.