Whether the Sixth Circuit's property applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in denying Petition relief where in the underlying state court matter, the prosecution violated Cope's due process rights as provided for under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) by failing to disclose that a victimwitness at his criminal trial had served as confidential informant for the police

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Sixth Circuit’s property applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in denying Petition relief where in the underlying state court matter, the prosecution violated Cope’s due process rights as provided for under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) by failing to disclose that a victimwitness at his criminal trial had served as confidential informant for the police. INTRODUCTION This case presents and important issue concerning the proper application the AEDPA deference standard where there was a clear violation of Petitioner’s due process rights as described in Brady v. Maryland that resulted in a conviction at trial and a resulting 40 year sentence. Petitioner submits that the Sixth Circuit's opinion below “involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by this Court”, that is, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, by failing to disclose that a victim-witness at his criminal trial had recently served as confidential informant for investigating Kingsport Police Department. Despite this admitted omission of information from the defense, the Sixth Circuit, and preceding lower courts, concluded that no prejudice occurred. Petitioner submits this conclusion is in contravention of this Court’s precedent. i