If there exist authentic uncontradicted testimonial evidence in the record of a criminal proceedings that proves that a member of a law enforcement agency deliberately fabricated evidence to frame an individual, should a state be permitted to continue prosecution against this individual, without having rebutted this evidence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. If there exist authentic uncontradicted testimonial evidence in the record of a criminal proceedings that proves that a member of a law enforcement agency deliberately fabricated evidence to frame an individual, on the day this individual was arrested, should a state be permitted to continue prosecution against this individual, without having rebutted this evidence? 2. Is there a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government? 3. Where the lower court has made a factual finding in a civil rights action, after having taken judicial notice of appellant's state criminal proceedings, in which it found that: (1) an expert in the field of handwriting testified to the fact that a signature on a Miranda waiver form had been forged, and had not been written by the appellant; (2) the state prosecution conspicuously avoided challenging appellant's expert's findings that evidence had been deliberately fabricated, when it appeared; (3) the state preliminary hearing judge found that there was probable cause, based in part on the evidence that appellant's expert had testified to the fact had : been deliberately fabricated; (4) the state prosecution during appellant's trial proceedings deliberately suppressed the Miranda waiver form and confession from being presented to the jury for their consideration; and (5) the state trial judge barred appellant from introducing the fact that the signature on the Miranda waiver form was a forgery and that appellant had not confessed to the charges he was on trial for; would not a jurist of reason found it debatable whether the petition stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitututional right and would not a jurist of reason have found it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling? 2.