Whether the steps the petitioner proposed for regaining access to those letters are a 'watershed rule implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | . . 1). While incarcerated at the county jail between October 2008 : and February 04, 2010, state witnesses Jeneya Richardson and . . Kimberly Meadows wrote the petitioner to disclose being under . duress to frame him as the guilty party. They warned of the , perjured testimony the prosecution would have them suborn . . against him, if he did not cop out to the twenty nine years plea ~ that the government would offer. Upon Learning the letters were . in his possession,, agents of the county jail did not let the a petitioner to travel with his belongings nor shipped them to the institution he was transferred to on February 05, 2010. Months later, the petitioner filed a civil lawsuit in state court : : asking the government to turn over his documents. In a April 12, 2010 certification, the First Assistant Prosecutor Janetta D. . . Marbrey repudiated the county jail and her office having access : to the letters. ; : Three weeks before the criminal trial, defense counsel moved to : compel. In response, the Assistant Prosecutor Lewis J. Korngut took the position that the belongings were at the county jail : a . and defense counsel could go get them. Skeptical that the letters had been removed, hidden, and would be nowhere to be found,.the petitioner and his attorney, requested the state a trial judge to have the prosecution and/or its agents bring the . 4 . belongings to the courtroom so that they could be inventoried in ; front of the judge. This way, there would be a ‘chain of. custody and the petitioner anddefense counsel could put it on the record if the letters were missing. The state judge wanted the . petitioner to trust that the prosecution didn’t tamper with his belongings, even as state witness Jeneya Richardson, attempted ' to introduce a letter other than the one she wrote the petitioner in the county jail. Whether the steps the petitioner proposed for regaining access to those letters are a “watershed rule implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding” Whorton v. Bockting, 548 U.S. 406, 416 . (2007) ? . 2). None of the state witnesses was there when the deceased was buried. In the absence of any testimony to that effect, the prosecutor, in summation, declared that the petitioner did not attend the funeral for his brother and asked what innocent . person acts like this. Not only did the remark inflame the . passion of the jurors, it assured them that his belief was based upon something he knew from outside the record. Was this ; fundamentally unfair prosecutorial conduct within the meaning of Parker v. Mathews, 567 U.S. 37, 45 (2012)? ; 3). On September 25, 2007, there was an arson at 206 Wayne Avenue in Trenton, New Jersey, with the victims inside. State witness Jessie Harley testified that when she went to her : ii . | 4 . . residence on Klagg Avenue a few days later to see if the petitioner was there, she found the shirt he had been wearing the night before the fire. This time, the shirt had dried blood . and skin smeared across the front. She threw the shirt away because she was scared of him. Being that a scary person would ; not have, after receiving news of the fire, went looking for the . . petitioner without any law enforcement escort and assistance, was it a due process violation for the prosecutor to present or : fail to correct the factual impossibility Jessie Harley testified to? ’ . . 4). Upon it becoming clear that state witness Jessie Harley ; would testify that the petitioner asked her to drive him to buy . some gas so he can set his brother on fire, the defense : , requested the test results of the fluid found in the house. Since gas was chemically ruled out, the prosecution withheld . that information during discovery, so that Jessie Harley, could perpetrate the fraud that the petitioner was contemplating to murder his. brother with gas. When the truth finally came out, it arrived via Detective Gary Wasko, who was the last state witness the jurors