Whether the state courts denied due process, equal protection, and access to courts by misapplying Brady v. Maryland, Napue v. Illinois, and Strickland v. Washington

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.CHARLES COUNTY MISSOURL, THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICK, AND THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT, DENIED PETITIONER, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AS THOSE COURTS REFUSED TO CORRECTLY APPLY MATERIALITY OF BRADY V. MARYLAND 373 U.S. 83 (1963), WHILE REFUSING/DENYING PETITIONERS BRADY V. MARYLAND CLAIM. WHEN THE RECORD UNDISPUTEDLY SHOWED THAT THE STATE SUPPRESSED MATERIAL INFORMATION, COMPRIZED OF A 1983 LAWSUIT WHICH WAS WON BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST OFFICER HUNT AND ST.CHARLES COUNTY, ALONG WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO OFFICER HUNT WHICH LEAD TO A CONVICTION, AND THAT MANY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, POLICE DEPARTMENTS KNEW OF BOTH THE LAWSUIT AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO OFFICER CHRISTOPHER HUNT. Il. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.CHARLES COUNTY MISSOURL, THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICK, AND THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT, DENIED PETITIONER, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AS THOSE COURTS, INCORRECTLY APPLIED THE "KNOWN PERJURED TESTIMONY" AND FALSE EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY OF NAPUE V. ILLINOIS 360 U.S. 264 (1959), WHILE REFUSING TO CONSIDER SOME/ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS OF VIDEO'S AND TIMELIMITS IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY APPLY NAPUE. WHEN THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT THE TIMES ON THE VIDEO'S, THE VIDEO'S AND THE TIME OF THE ACTUAL PHONE CALL BY THE VICTIM, PROVES THE KNOWN PERJURED TESTIMONY OF STATE WITNESS, AMBER KEYS. Ill. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.CHARLES COUNTY MISSOURI, THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICK, AND THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT, DENIED PETITIONER, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AS THOSE « io oe COURTS REFUSED TO APPLY OR CORRECTLY APPLY "FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS" : TO PETITIONERS CLAIMS, EVEN AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR OWN EXCEPTION TO RAISE DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS IN A 29.15 PCR, WHICH WAS FOR FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS RIGHTS. WHEN THE RECORD SHOWS PETITIONER WAS DENIED BEING ABLE TO PUT ON A COMPLETE DEFENSE AS THE STATE REFUSED DISCOVERY OF VIDEOS AND TIMED TRAVEL ROUTES AND MORE. Iv. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.CHARLES COUNTY MISSOURI, MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE EASTERN DISTRICK, AND THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT, DENIED. PETITIONER, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION.OF THE LAW, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AS THOSE COURTS REFUSED TO CORRECTLY APPLY, STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 668 (1984) TO COUNSELS DUTIES, AND FAILED TO CORRECTLY APPLY THE PREJUDICE PRONG. WHEN THE RECORD UNDENIABLY SHOWS THAT TRIAL COUNSEL REFUSED/FORGOT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS THAT WOULD/DOES CORROBORATE ANOTHER ALIBI WITNESS, BOTH OF WHICH PETITIONER DOES NOT PERSONALLY KNOW, COUNSEL REFUSED TO PUBLISH TWO VIDEOS TO THE JURY TO DECIMATE THE STATES CASE, AND COUNSEL STIPULATED TO THE CHAIN , OF CUSTODY TO A DETECTIVE DAN MALXNER"S VIDEO SURVEILLANCE. ve WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.CHARLES COUNTY MISSOURI, THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICK, AND THE. MISSOURI SUPREME COURT, DENIED PETITIONER, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AS THE MISSOURI . APPEALS COURT AND SUPREME COURT, ACKNOWLEDGED IN THEIR OPINION AND JUDGEMENT, THAT PETITIONERS 29.15 PCR APPOINTED COUNSEL DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC MATERIAL FACTS IN THEIR AMENDED MOTION AND THEREFORE DENIED THE CLAIMS AND 29.15 PCR, DENYING PETITIONER . , EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE/ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF 29.15 PCR COUNSEL IN THE PCR'S INITIAL COLLATERAL ATTACK, AS DECIDED IN, MARTINEZ V. RYAN 132 S.Ct 1309 (2012). ’ ? F o VI. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.CHARLES COUNTY MISSOURI, THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICK, AND THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT, DENIED PETITIONER, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AS THOSE COURTS DENIED PETITIONER 29.15 PCR RELIEF AFTER THE MOTION COURT JUDGE ADMITTED ON RECORD THAT AN ALIBI WITNESS, DENNIS DELBRUGGIE, WHO PETITIONER DOES NOT PERSONNALLY KNOW, AND THAT