Whether the state district court's determination that written, 5K1 and Rule 35-based cooperation addenda, audio recorded communications, and audio recorded debriefings should have been disclosed by the state prosecutor to the Petitioner's defense counsel before Petitioner's trial for murder, as impeaching evidence under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and whether the district court correctly determined that the failure to disclose the evidence was not material to Petitioner's case

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the state district court’s determination that 1. written, 5K1 and Rule 35-based cooperation addenda between two federal inmates who testified against Petitioner at his murder trial and the federal government, 2. audio recorded communications between lawyers for the two federal inmates and a San Antonio Police Department detective in which the detective agreed to keep an open mind about making favorable recommendations for leniency at the federal inmates’s upcoming federal sentencings, and 3. audio recorded debriefings about the murder between the federal inmates, their respective counsel, federal prosecutors handling the inmates’s upcoming sentencings, and the state prosecutors in Petitioner’s murder investigation, respectively, should have been disclosed by the state prosecutor to the Petitioner’s defense counsel before Petitioner’s trial for murder, as impeaching evidence under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and whether the district court correctly determined, alternatively, that the failure to disclose the evidence was not material to Petitioner’s case, where the only testimony material to the Petitioner’s guilt was presented at the Petitioner’s trial by the two federal inmates? ii