Did the trial court err in holding the Prosecution did not have possession of the 'it was placed' note ultimately produced by the FBI?

QUESTION PRESENTED After Petitioner Jamil Al-Amin filed a federal habeas action challenging his Georgia conviction, the FBI for the first time produced: (1) a BOLO (“be on the lookout”) bulletin issued to “ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES” the day after the crimes that described the perpetrator as “5’ 6”-5’ 8”, 150-160 LBS” (Mr. Al-Amin stands 6’ 5” and weighed 187 pounds); and (2) handwritten notes of the FBI’s interview with the member of the Alabama dog tracking team who found the pistol allegedly used in the crimes, which noted that the officer stated he felt the pistol “was placed.” Mr. Al-Amin then filed a state successive habeas action under Brady v. Maryland, 373 USS. 83, 87 (1963). Discounting that Georgia state authorities had worked closely with the FBI in the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Al-Amin’s criminal case, the state habeas court held the Prosecution did not have possession of the “it was placed” note. And even though (1) the BOLO bulletin directly supported Mr. Al-Amin’s mistaken identity defense and (2) the “it was placed” note corroborates the defense theory that the weapons found in Alabama had been planted, the state habeas court found both documents immaterial. The questions presented are: 1. Did the trial court err in holding the Prosecution did not have possession of the “it was placed” note ultimately produced by the FBI? i 2. Did the trial court err in holding that the BOLO bulletin and the “it was placed” note did not constitute material evidence that could have impacted the outcome of the trial? RULE 14.1(B)(ID STATEMENT This case challenges the same criminal conviction as imposed or otherwise addressed in the following actions: In State v. Al-Amin, No. 00-SC-03563 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), the jury returned a guilty verdict on March 9, 2002, and Mr. Al-Amin was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on March 13, 2002. The state trial court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s amended motion for new trial on July 2, 2008. The Supreme Court of Georgia issued its opinion in the direct appeal affirming the verdict and sentence on May 24, 2004. Al-Amin v. State, No. S04A0151 (Ga.). This Court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s petition for a writ of certiorari in his direct appeal on November 15, 2004. Al-Amin v. Georgia, No. 04-6606, 543 U.S. 992. In Al-Amin v. Smith, No. 2005-HC-66 (Ga. Super. Ct., Tattnall Cty.), the state court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s first state habeas petition by Final Order entered on July 28, 2011. The Supreme Court of Georgia denied Mr. Al-Amin’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his first state habeas petition on May 7, 2012. No. $12H0007 (Ga.). Mr. Al-Amin filed his federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (where he was incarcerated at the time), but that court transferred the habeas action to the United States District w Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 15, 2012. Al-Amin v. Davis, No. 1:12-ev-01197-BNB (D. Colo.). The magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued a Report and Recommendation and Final Order in Mr. Al-Amin’s federal habeas action on March 24, 2016. The district court judge issued an Order overruling Mr. Al-Amin’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and denying his federal habeas petition on September 29, 2017. Al-Amin v. Shartle, No. 12-CV-1688-AT-GGB (N.D. Ga.). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. AlAmin’s federal habeas petition on July 31, 2019. Al-Amin v. Warden, No. 17-14865 (11th Cir.). This Court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s petition for a writ of certiorari in his federal habeas action on April 6, 2020. Al-Amin v. Ward, No. 19-573, 140 S. Ct. 2640. Mr. Al-Amin filed a successive state habeas action, presenting a Brady claim based on information produced after the conclusion of his first state habeas action. The trial court