Jerry Lee Pitman v. State, 372 S.W.3d 261

Pitman pled guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault without a punishment recommendation and received two consecutive life sentences.
Pitman filed a motion for new trial claiming Brady violations due to non-disclosure of CPS records prior to plea and punishment hearing.
State disclosed only some materials during proceedings; CPS records allegedly contained therapy notes contradicting testimony.
DNA testing confirmed Pitman as the father of the child born to the victim, SP, establishing one factual basis for the charges.
Evidence included testimony from CPS workers and SP’s therapist about abuse and PTSD symptoms, with circumstantial corroboration.
During new-trial proceedings, a civil termination attorney produced approx. 3,300 CPS documents, about 150 pages provided to defense, with 3,000 pages undisclosed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the state violate Brady by withholding documents?	Pitman asserts 3,000 undisclosed CPS pages were Brady material.	State contends materials were not material impeachment or exculpatory evidence and not required to be disclosed.	No Brady violation; undisclosed material not shown to be material to guilt or punishment.
Was the trial court's ruling on the motion for new trial an abuse of discretion?	New-trial relief warranted due to undisclosed impeachment evidence undermining trial credibility.	Court acted within reasonable discretion; undisclosed items not material to outcome.	No abuse of discretion; denial of motion for new trial affirmed.
Was the undisclosed evidence material under Brady's third prong?	Greuner therapy notes would impeach SP and undermine credibility, affecting outcome.	Notes largely corroborate trial record or were not admissible; no material impact shown.	Undisclosed notes not shown to be material; not likely to change outcome.

Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (defines Brady material and three-prong test for materiality)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (impeachment material must be favorable and material to guilt/punishment)
Harm v. State, 183 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discusses Brady material and consideration of withheld evidence)
Ex parte Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (recognizes Brady duty extending to other state agents)
Ex parte Lewis, 587 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (Brady applicability to guilty-plea contexts discussed)
Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2002) (pre-plea disclosures in plea agreements discussed)
Webb v. State, 232 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing a motion for new trial)
Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for new-trial decisions)
Tate v. Wood, 963 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1992) (guilty-plea materiality assessment in Brady context)
Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (pretrial statements' impeachment value not material if later corroborated)