the state prosecutors for him to testify in order to secure the 20-year sentence. The jury heard fairly lengthy testimony from both Gary Woods and Michael Declouet, on direct and cross-examination, regarding their understanding of what they would receive by testifying and, as noted above, both testified that they expected nothing in return for their testimony. Defendant has offered no evidence that there was a deal between the State and either Gary Woods or Michael Declouet in which the State agreed not to pursue charges in exchange for testimony. As such, we fail to find that the evidence constitutes Brady material. See State v. Davis, 08-165, p. 12-13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/29/08), 993 So.2d 295, 302-04, writs denied, 08-2188 (La.5/1/09), 6 So.3d 810 and 08-2200 (La.5/1/09), 6 So.3d 811 (<HOLDING>); see also Williams, 338 So.2d at 677 (finding
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 that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that evidence failed to show that the state violated brady and giglio by failing to timely disclose impeachment evidence regarding an alleged plea deal when the defendant failed to show that there was a deal between the state and witness in which witness received consideration for his testimony at the defendants trial holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources holding that where a states witness has not gained a concrete benefit for his testimony by way of a deal with the state and the accused is permitted broad scope in exposing the potential for bias in the witnesss testimony the trial court did not err in not allowing the accused to crossexamine the witness about possible recidivist penalties that he faced