In a death penalty case, where a state provides a post-conviction procedure for challenging the unresolved constitutional violations that occurred at a capital trial, and where the state court violated mandatory state procedures and denied habeas relief on the merits for failing to present sufficient evidence, after having prevented an applicant from having presented evidence, do minimal due process protections of having the opportunity to present evidence and challenge adverse evidence apply?

QUESTION PRESENTED It is fundamental that, when a state provides for capital state post-conviction proceedings, the state court proceedings must comport with due process. However, this Court has not reached the question of precisely how process is due in capital state post-conviction proceedings, where a death-sentenced prisoner has the first opportunity to raise constitutional violations that occurred at his capital trial. Mr. Balderas was convicted of capital murder largely on the basis of an identification that a majority of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed was impermissibly suggestive, and the testimony of a gang member who told the jury that Mr. Balderas confessed to the crime. In post-conviction, Mr. Balderas alleged that this gang member testified falsely, and the state suppressed impeachment evidence as to this witness and other exculpatory evidence. Mr. Balderas alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during both the guilt/innocence and punishment phases at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment, in part because his trial attorneys failed to investigate alibi evidence, misidentification evidence, and mitigation evidence. In addition, Mr. Balderas raised other extra-record claims relating to due process violations under Brady v. Maryland, the State’s use of false testimony by its star witness, extraneous influence on the jury, violations under Batson v. Kentucky, and other constitutional challenges to his conviction. Here, although Texas state law provided mandatory procedures to permit Mr. Balderas to prove his alleged constitutional violations and the ability to confront adverse evidence against him, the state courts failed to comply with these basic procedures. Despite meeting the pleading burden for his legal claims in state postconviction proceedings, Mr. Balderas was denied the opportunity to prove his case and introduce evidence in support of his claims. Instead, the state habeas court conducted an overly narrowed hearing on just two severely constricted issues, wherein Mr. Balderas was only permitted to present limited evidence from specific witnesses chosen by the court. The State, by contrast, was allowed to submit controverting evidence that was never subjected to adversarial testing. The state habeas court adopted the State’s proposed findings and conclusions nearly verbatim, recommending that Mr. Balderas be denied relief. Following the evidentiary hearing, the State disclosed long-suppressed evidence that undermined the credibility of the testimony of its star witness. The suppressed evidence was that an individual who was present during the alleged confession heard no such confession, and never had reason to believe that Mr. Balderas was the culprit. The Texas courts, however, did not permit Mr. Balderas ili to reopen the evidentiary hearing to present evidence that utterly undermined the credibility of the State’s star witness. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) then rubberstamped the process, presumptively overruling all of Mr. Balderas’s objections to the state habeas court process and violations of due process, summarily affirming the state habeas court’s facially inadequate findings and conclusions. Further, the TCCA failed to rule on Mr. Balderas’s motion to remand his case to the trial court to allow Mr. Balderas an opportunity to fully support his claims with evidence and to address the new exculpatory evidence disclosed by the State after the evidentiary hearing had ended. Thus, this case presents the following question: In a death penalty case, where a state provides a post-conviction procedure for challenging the unresolved constitutional violations that occurred at a capital trial, and where the state court violated mandatory state procedures and denied habeas relief on the merits for failing to present sufficient evidence, after having prevented an applicant from having presented evidence, do minimal due process protections of having the opportunity t