In Kulbicki v. State, 207 Md. App. 412, 53 A.3d 361, cert. granted, 430 Md. 344, 61 A.3d 18 (2012) involved an appeal from a denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to C.P. 7-101. The Court held that Kulbicki waived his contention relating to Mr. Kopera's false testimony because the accuracy of his alleged credentials could have been discovered prior to trial, and therefore, it could have been raised on appeal. Id. at 437. Mr. Kopera testified that a bullet fragment in Kulbicki's truck was consistent with a .38 caliber gun or larger, that the damage to his truck was caused by a bullet fragment, and that Kulbicki's gun had been cleaned. Kulbicki, who was convicted of murder, filed a post-conviction petition alleging that Mr. Kopera committed perjury in testifying that he attended the University of Maryland and Rochester Institute of Technology, and he falsified documents to conceal his false statements regarding his educational background. Id. at 429. At the hearing on Kulbicki's post-conviction petition, the State stipulated that Mr. Kopera had lied about his credentials at trial. Id. at 430. Kulbicki then presented the testimony of John Nixon, an expert in firearms and ballistics, to discredit the substance of Mr. Kopera's testimony. Id. Mr. Nixon testified that, contrary to Mr. Kopera's opinion, it was not possible to determine what damaged Kulbicki's truck. He further opined that Kulbicki's gun did not fire the bullet fragment, which most likely came from a .32 caliber weapon. Id. The Court determined, after finding that Kulbicki's post-conviction claim regarding Mr. Kopera's testimony was waived because "a background investigation would have revealed that Mr. Kopera lacked the claimed college degrees," that Kulbicki's claim failed on the merits because the falsity of the testimony was not material. Id. at 446. Specifically, the Court agreed with the circuit court that "'there simply is no likelihood that the jury's determination would have been influenced by the fact that Mr. Kopera did not have the academic credentials he claimed.'" Id. at 447. The Court agreed with the State that the record reflected that "'ballistics is a field for which no college degree is offered, and the expertise for the field is usually based on experience, which Mr. Kopera had in copious amounts.'" Id. The Court of Appeals discussed the 1991 report, and noted that Ernest Peele -- the same CBLA expert who testified at appellant's trial in 1993 -- was one of the authors of the report (referred to in Kulbicki as "the 1991 Peele Report"). Because the 1991 Peele Report was "distributed to various public libraries in 1994," id. at 52 n.12, and was theoretically available to the general public at the time of Kulbicki's trial in 1995, the Court of Appeals held that, "had Kulbicki's attorneys investigated and discovered the 1991 Peele Report, they would have had a potent challenge to Agent Peele's conclusion that the bullet fragment taken from the autopsy and the fragment found in Kulbicki's truck was 'what you'd expect if you were examining two pieces of the same bullet.'" Id. at 52. The Court held that the failure of Kulbicki's trial counsel to utilize the 1991 Peele Report in cross-examining Agent Peele was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court explained, id. at 53: Kulbicki's attorneys' failure to appropriately investigate the 1991 Peele Report and to challenge the State's scientific evidence on cross-examination at trial, thus, fell short of prevailing professional norms. Given the serious nature of the charges Kulbicki was facing, along with the fact that CBLA was so persuasively used to connect Kulbicki to the alleged murder scene and murder weapon, it was incumbent on Kulbicki's attorneys "to subject the state's theories to the rigors of adversarial testing". See Driscoll, 71 F.3d at 709. Having failed to research what Agent Peele had published about the forensic evidence about which he was testifying and having also failed to conduct an adequate cross-examination rendered Kulbicki's counsels' performance inadequate. Further, the Court of Appeals held that, if Agent Peele had been effectively cross-examined, there was a substantial possibility the result of the trial would have been different: Given the State's rigorous reliance on CBLA evidence to connect Kulbicki to the crime, we conclude that there was a "substantial possibility" that the outcome would have been different had Kulbicki's counsel questioned Agent Peele regarding the possibility of having compositionally similar bullets exist in different batches. Having concluded that both prongs of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) have been satisfied, we hold that the Circuit Court erred in concluding that Kulbicki's attorneys had not rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus, remand for a new trial. Id. at 56.