Whether the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a precedent-setting error in interpreting the requirements for 'bad faith' as a Due Process violation under the 14th Amendment concerning the destruction and loss of potentially exculpatory material evidence under Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) that contributes to an existing and growing circuit split of exceptional importance?

STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS This is the case for the Court to critically re-examine lost evidence and “bad faith” under Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) because in application across the various jurisdictions, Youngblood is not being applied in clear or consistent ways. If Davis can present all of the evidence that at this point exists, does the “loss”, destruction and alteration of over 72 pieces of critical evidence by six separate Georgia agencies (that often misled and obstructed Davis and the courts) with only circumstantial evidence of guilt qualify as “bad faith” for the purposes of a due process violation under Youngblood or under the 14" Amendment? 1. Whether the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a precedentsetting error in interpreting the requirements for "bad faith" as a Due Process violation under the 14" Amendment concerning the destruction and loss of potentially exculpatory material evidence under Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) that contributes to an existing and growing circuit split of exceptional importance? -Or -2. If the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was not a precedentsetting error of exceptional importance in interpreting the requirements for "bad faith" concerning the destruction and loss of potentially exculpatory material evidence under Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), should the requirements established by Arizona v. Youngblood be reexamined in light of the various issues of existing circuit splits of exceptional importance, doctrinal incoherence, new forensic science, legislative reform, and state judicial disapproval? ii