Whether a prosecutor's failure to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence related to a police officer's prior criminal conduct violates the defendant's due process rights under the 4th and 8th Amendments

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 3B B ita Ub. Due brocess (4th and 8th Arneadmeats Constititional Rights violation, and a Brady v. Maryland supa, Violation, for a Lasecdtor who Kaew, or shatld have Krow, bit failed te disclose Excu|patory Evidence, Mit batty Culpability Evidence * thatlang Beach Police OF tice, Silio A. Alcataz, was (afact part OF the investigation for the mutder/ robberies charged against me, Ptkendants « »« Bt Was glso the same Officer responsible, tadicted and Canticted For a Aplte of 2troan armed robberics of divas and maney against | Civilrans. Dring, the Same dafes, same locatrons gave. M. 0, Of the murder/robberics pinned aad chacwed against me Letendatl?” 4) Should aa [Lanocent Marching forte Allegations oF his LActual Tanocence I, a deprivation of Me Hrocess kia hts gvatantecd by the U5. Federal Constitutton, be allouked to have tie 0 Caliber Chullett found dutiag the avtopsy of the mirde(/robbees he was FALseLy CoNiictég on. . . Etested and compared by a ballistic Expt fo the Firtaims found (A the POPSCASIOA of tad hed ard Convicted £Scrral Robbert, Long Beach folice Officer, TIWo 4Al cater. when the Pasectol Cfarled fo disclose this Excv\pafoly Evidence, third facty culpability Evidence, and taaptachment furpases Ebideace I, Brady ¥ Matyland, Supla, Discovery Matelial, crvcial to the Let case. Nope Vv: llinois, 260 VE. 264 Bchlup VDelo (1995) Nb B-LTBAL, 130 L.éd 2d 606, 836, B13 V5.298, 327; Moonty Vi Hofehan, Bvp/a; US. V. AgUIS (1976) 127 VS-97,107 E19 LEA 2d B42, 96 BCT 2BGL Tf Th re Brown (1998) (7 Cal. Hh 873 at 879, T2Lal-Kptt: 2d G98, 992L2d 1152” QUESTION(S) PRESENTED BYELS ita US.Iue fracess (4th and 8k Amendment? Constitutional Rights Violation, and a Brady vialation, fora Frascedtor wha failed t° diaclose Ciapeachment birpeses EydenttJ of Lone heath folice. Se partment (L6ED) OF ficer, Sula A. Alcavaz5 Tadit¢ment and Convictions fora Spc. At76ng armed Cobberies. had the whole thvestiaatian against him by the LELD and FAISince 1979]. + whith Defense Counsel cadid ve Used tof) Call Offices Alcaraeasa Wrlaess for the Defease and Zapcached him: and A)Ampeached the 27x (G) LEPO Offices who testified a aginst thc Detendant at tial. Kegaiajng their Motives +o lic aad peguie tiemselvés to protect their LAPD Ffartner af Il yeas, Office! Sire A Alcataz, trom being prasccdted for the Wider (obbesiés pian cd and Charged on the Lufendant + «Aad ta protect their whale Lang Beach Police Lepars tment fram a Caimi larl LAPD RAMPART SCANDAL Within therr ows Long beach Police Department: £6 Wando v. City OF Los Angeles (Marth 28, 2002) 92 F. Supp.2d jor, joly 2???