file referring to Smith as a “sub.,” and (3) the anonymous handwritten note, discussing Smith’s statement and changing the description of Davis’ motorcycle helmet from “blue” to “gold.” In general terms, the issue is whether the state court’s determination that the failure of the State to disclose the foregoing evidence did not constitute a Brady violation contravenes the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2). a.) The Brady Cumulative Materiality Analysis The court first addresses Davis’ contention that the state court’s determination was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law because the state court failed to engage in a collective materiality inquiry in determining whether a Brady violation had occurred. See Kyles, supra, 514 U.S. at 436, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (<HOLDING>). The State acknowledges that the Alabama Court
holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both holding that materiality analysis turns on the cumulative effect of the suppressed evidence not an itembyitem analysis