occurred before or after Pope’s DNA work in the instant case. Additionally, this evidence reflects only that which occurred in another case, rather than providing evidence of that which occurred in the instant case. Second, the challenges presented by Over-ton’s counsel to Pope during trial were significant. Pope was impeached with evidence of his conduct in the instant case. Along with other forms of impeachment, Overton’s counsel elicited evidence from Pope that he transported pieces of evidence to his home and placed evidence in his household refrigerator, which is not certified as a storage facility or lab. This evidence did impeach Pope, and the alleged evidence of similar sloppy work in another case would be cumulative. See Ponticelli v. State, 941 So.2d 1073, 1086-87 (Fla.2006) (<HOLDING>); Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 508
holding that there was no brady violation because the exculpatory effect of the disputed documents was merely speculative holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea holding that an appellants due process rights were not violated when he did not receive brady material before his transfer hearing because he will be able to make effective use of any brady material at trial holding impeachment evidence falls within the brady rule holding that the alleged brady material was merely cumulative to the significant impeachment that already occurred during trial so there was no prejudice for a brady violation