Did Louisiana courts err in refusing to apply Wearry to Mr. Skinner's Brady claims?

In Wearry v. Cain , 577 U.S. 385 (2016) (per curiam), this Court summarily reversed a Louisiana postconviction court and vacated Michael Wearry’s murder conviction. This Court determined that the State withheld evidence that would have seriously impeached the State’s star witnesses. “Beyond doubt,” this Court held, withholding that evidence violated Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Wearry , 577 U.S. at 392. Petitioner James Skinner was convicted of the same crime as Mr. Wearry on the basis of the same star witnesses’ testimony. The State withheld the same evidence as in Wearry ; indeed, Mr. Skinner has since uncovered still more evidence that the State did not turn over. Mr. Skinner thus petitioned Louisiana courts for the same relief as Mr. Wearry: vacatur of his conviction. In response, the Louisiana postconviction trial court wrote only: “[T]he Weary [sic] case is distinguishable enough from the instant case that its decision does not compel this Court to follow suit.” This petition presents the following question: Did Louisiana courts err in refusing to apply Wearry to Mr. Skinner’s Brady claims?