Where the State withholds the statement of a critical witness from the state court during the postconviction adjudication of a claim under Brady v. Maryland, and does not produce the statement until years later during federal habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §2254, should the federal court be required to conduct a de novo review of the Brady claim, giving no deference to the state court's findings related to this issue, and including relevant evidence developed during federal habeas proceedings?

QUESTION PRESENTED Where the State withholds the statement of a critical witness from the state court during the postconviction adjudication of a claim under Brady v. Maryland, and does not produce the statement until years later during federal habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §2254, should the federal court be required to conduct a de novo review of the Brady claim, giving no deference to the state court’s findings related to this issue, and including relevant evidence developed during federal habeas proceedings? PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. DIRECTLY