Whether Mr. Pizzuto is entitled to habeas relief or an extraordinary writ due to the State's suppression of evidence and presentation of false testimony in violation of Brady-v-Maryland,Napue-v-Illinois

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. As noted by Justice Betty Fletcher in her dissenting opinion, “[w]hen faced with the corruption of our legal system, we must start over. The first step is to allow [Mr.] Pizzuto to file a second petition for habeas corpus in the district court. Nothing more nor less is required of us.” Pizzuto v. Blades, 673 F.3d 1003, 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) (dissenting opinion of Fletcher, J.). The question presented to the Court is whether Mr. Pizzuto is entitled to habeas relief or an extraordinary writ because the State suppressed evidence of a secret deal brokered by his trial judge promising a key witness a lenient sentence and then presented false testimony denying the agreement, all in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT/WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS -— Page i