Where the state courts did not address Petitioner's claim that the prosecution failed to disclose certain evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), but nonetheless decided that trial counsel's failure to undercover the same evidence did not prejudice Petitioner under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), must a federal court considering a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition review the Brady issue de novo under Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), or does the deference standard in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) apply?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Where the state courts did not address Petitioner’s claim that the prosecution failed to disclose certain evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), but nonetheless decided that trial counsel’s failure to undercover the same evidence did not prejudice Petitioner under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), must a federal court considering a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition review the Brady issue de novo under Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), or does the deference standard in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) apply? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no