Opinion ID: 782712
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Materiality of the Allegedly Undisclosed Information

Text: 50 Petitioner also fails to demonstrate that the allegedly undisclosed information was material. [W]here the undisclosed evidence merely furnishes an additional basis on which to challenge a witness whose credibility has already been shown to be questionable or who is subject to extensive attack by reason of other evidence, the undisclosed evidence may be cumulative, and hence not material. United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 257 (2d Cir.1998); see also Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235, 251 (2d Cir.1998) (When a witness's credibility has already been substantially called into question in the same respects by other evidence, additional impeachment evidence will generally be immaterial and will not provide the basis for a Brady claim.). 51 We note that petitioner extensively attacked the witnesses' credibility at trial. On cross-examination, Landers and Pullum admitted to having serious drug habits. Landers testified that he was under the influence of narcotics when the shooting occurred, and both Landers and Pullum took cocaine and heroin the night they identified petitioner in the lineup. Landers also admitted that he initially lied about his whereabouts at the time of the shooting. 52 Therefore, we conclude that the allegedly undisclosed material would not have been material as impeachment evidence. The government need not disclose evidence that, while possibly useful to the defense, Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, is immaterial.