Whether newly discovered evidence is sufficient to establish a due process violation for procedural default or the bar of res judicata pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Judgments

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED “1D Whethey dawly discovered evidence Nelping to estoblish the bod Leith stondovd ennoenced in this court's decision of , &kvizene v Younrgiolood , 4Q% U.S, | CLAD, 1S soFficiert +o except Such due process cAvim fone Procedove | de fautt, ov the bay of ves “yudicata Pursumt +o +e . Law of RESTATEMENT ( SEcoND) OF JUDGEMENTS 3ZB? «Leg A . Ve 22 Whether the spoliation af evidence oy 8 forensi, enrlyst Mn bod f2ith has siqnificmce undev the controlling , stendard for establishing eo due process vivletion toy desly uctim ok evidence et mknow valve loy pe~ ; lice in bad Fxth? LC pg, 1O9 | : TT 1 | om) Whethey newly discovered evidence dovidy establish ing the Stote's forensic analyst vovloted my dus process vights' under Nepve v People of State of Tit, duo US, 204 | Ciaea) % Fed. Roles) of Evidence Tol 4 Tor fs Sv Phi cient to except such due Pwtas clam trom re Judi date C¥ for pweedvy al defowtt) porsvant to the Law of Restatement C Second) of O udganerts | %202 Cpa 224 . 4.) Whether there exists Extroordinany Civemestm ces to . except a clrim of Mefectiie msistence of comsel | . Whether ot trial ov direct eppeal Gow ves (yuh cote or preeduvel defwlt, pusumt to te Law of REsTATEMEenT C SECOWD) oF Svoaemewrs & ; viii A . | (QuestIONCs) PRESENTED \ 2 6.) Whether 2 constitotionel vivlttion Wes probably vesulted in ths conviction of one who i actually Mmno cent | [see Movwey v Coniev, 477 U.S. 7 Udo, \Ow 8. Gh vt 2649, whee applying evr analysis uncler . Brecht vy Atorahanson SOT u.S. GIT, NBS. CH VO to the wlevint facts, the defect ocewing in the | Proceed ng Vad » svlostatiol % WW revs 6 Plect { | i | viii B