evidence is not material. Second, contrary to Dennis’s speculation, the notes do not contain evidence that the State • introduced perjured testimony. Third, as noted above, evidence of the dismissal was not admissible at trial. See Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (stating that State has no duty to produce evidence that would be inadmissible at trial). Furthermore, our review of the undisclosed documents reveals merely that the State acknowledged inconsistent testimony of which Dennis’s counsel already was aware — this is not evidence that the State introduced perjured testimony. See Weisinger v. State, 775 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, pet. ref'd) (citing Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 191, 106 S.Ct. 988, 1007, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986)) (<HOLDING>); see also Duckett, 797 S.W.2d at 915-17
holding that the perjury by a key government witness irrespective of whether the government knew of the perjury at the time of trial infected the trial proceedings and required reversal holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding an individuals admission to a government agent prior to trial that he had previously committed perjury did not waive his privilege to invoke the fifth amendment as to that matter at trial holding that a lawyers certainty that a change in  recollection is a harbinger of intended perjury  as well as judicial review of such apparent certainty  should be tempered by the realization that after reflection the most honest witness may recall or sincerely believes he recalls details that he previously overlooked recognizing that informing the jury that testifying witness has agreed to cooperate with the government is a doubleedged sword as the existence of such agreement may suggest either that the witness will testify in accordance with the governments wishes regardless of the truth or that the witness will not he under threat of revocation of the agreement should the witness commit perjury