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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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? : i Ad