<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>materiality on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/materiality/</link><description>Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/materiality/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Fifth Circuit Vacates Capital Murder Conviction of Brittany Holberg, Holding State Court Unreasonably Applied Brady to Undisclosed Informant Evidence</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/</link><pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/</guid><description>A divided panel held that evidence the State did not disclose—that a jailhouse witness was a paid police informant—was favorable and material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that the state court’s contrary ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Judge Duncan dissented on materiality.</description></item></channel></rss>