Whether Missouri's verbatim adoption of the prosecution's factually deficient findings without independent review fails to provide adequate due process review of constitutional claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether Missouri’s verbatim adoption of the prosecution’s factually deficient findings without independent review — contrary to Jefferson v. Upton, 560 U.S. 284 (2010) — fails to provide adequate due process review of constitutional claims, including alleged Brady violations. II. Whether Missouri upends Brady’s disclosure requirements and violates due process by permitting nondisclosure of the state’s tacit agreement with its own witness to eliminate the remainder of his prison sentence following his testimony, while allowing the witness to deny this deal at trial. II. Whether Missouri’s added requirement to show “purpose to deprive” or “official animus” before sanctioning the state’s destruction of hair and fiber evidence found in a victim’s hand but not matching the defendant and having an exculpatory value apparent to law enforcement is contrary to California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), and violates due process.