419, 433, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). This duty to disclose extends to both impeachment and exculpatory evidence. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Evidence is suppressed when the prosecution fails to disclose it even when it is known only to police investigators but not the prosecutor. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555. Evidence is “material” when its suppression creates a reasonable probability of a different result. Id. at 433, 115 S.Ct. 1555. The materiality of all suppressed evidence must be considered cumulatively. Id. at 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555. Assuming Wright’s Brady claims are not proeedurally defaulted, a federal court must apply a de novo standard of review. Solis v. Cockrell, 342 F.3d 392, 394 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592, 598 (5th
holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding that whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law subject to de novo review holding that there was no adjudication on the merits and applying de novo review where petitioner presented claims based upon both federal and state law and the state court addressed them only in statelaw terms holding that review is de novo where there has been no adjudication on the merits in state court recognizing de novo standard of review