such drivel is just shameful. To be sure, our Constitution does not require this result. Byrd’s conviction and sentence are undermined by constitutional error as the following egregious examples demonstrate. (I) False Evidence As demonstrated in the previous discussion regarding Ronald Armstead, the prosecutors concealed evidence of innocence and presented evidence they knew to be false. Because the withholding of evidence seriously undermining the testimony of a central witness, and providing a specific reason to fabricate testimony, falls squarely within the constitutional prohibitions recognized in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), Byrd’s conviction and sentence are constitutionally infirm. See East v. Johnson, 123 F.3d 235, 239 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). (2) Improper Vouching The conduct of the
holding impeachment evidence was not merely cumulative where the withheld evidence was of a different character than evidence already known to the defense holding that materiality of medical information withheld from insurer could be presumed material to insurer holding that purely factual material may be withheld from disclosure under exemption 5 if that material would expose the deliberative process of an agency holding that when the withheld evidence would seriously undermine the testimony of a key witness or there is no strong corroboration the withheld evidence has been found to be material holding that evidence was sufficiently reliable because there was corroboration