suggests that knowledge of Rok’s and Kiniry’s actions would have made no difference because the disclosure of similar efforts that the prosecution made on behalf of Gary Blough did not affect the verdict; however, that reasoning ignores the far more central role that Cobaugh played at trial compared to Blough, a role similar to that of the witnesses in Giglio and Horton. The prosecution’s case rested in no small part on Cobaugh’s credibility, and thus evidence relevant to her motives for testifying cannot be so easily dismissed as immaterial. 3. Lab Reports Regarding Cobaugh Assault This is the weakest claim offered by Simmons, given that the lab reports did not eliminate him as the potential perpetrator of Cobaugh’s sexual assault. Cf. Gary v. Hall, 558 F.3d 1229, 1256 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Such “negative” or “inconclusive” results,
holding that inconclusive bite mark exemplar was not material in rape case where rapist had bitten victim given that other evidence did link defendant to crime holding that mistake as to the age of the victim is no defense to statutory rape holding in rape case that no clear link existed between father of victims and their rapes even where defense proffered evidence of fathers previous conviction for sexual abuse holding that the trial court did not commit constitutional error by excluding evidence about the pri or rape of the tenyearold victim when she was five years old because the defendant did not proffer evidence that the prior rape was similar to the current incident holding that a death sentence for a conviction for the rape of a child where the crime did not result and was not intended to result in death of the victim was barred by the eighth amendment