1. This Court has well settled that use of "fabricated
evidence" by a State "virtually" voids a criminal
judgment ab initio. But what effect does the use of
fabricated evidence have on the State 's finality
interests? Or does an interest in "finality "
outweigh the prejudice inherent to use of
fabricated evidence?

2. This Court has held cause for untimeliness could
be shown when post-conviction counsel was not
merely negligent, but had abandoned
representation without notice to the petitioner,
thereby resulting in the loss of state remedies. But
is some specific level of negligence required to
meet this "abandonment" test, or can "garden
variety " negligence be applied equally to every
occurrence where a state or federal remedy is
foreclosed by counsel's self-serving departure from
representation without notice?

Whether a State's interest in a judgment's finality is forfeited when the state fails to elicit the truth or fails to correct evidence it should know to be false, and to protect the critical right of fundamental fairness in, and protection of, due process