Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's delayed application for leave to appeal was contrary to the well-established law in People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973) that petitioner was entitled to a remand and evidentiary hearing to establish a Brady violation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED OAS war Nonae ae CM aan Sopremc Court dews vow to A i) ve toner cle layed frop ication For Leave e—~m ’ Ke ee on TH Meets of an Affadait of Attorney . YSk anesting te Here Kain a Brady \) lation. The Mich.aan Sop came Conv t decision ns Corterany To Cleat estabish Federal Lap under ‘Brady V. Maryland 373 O.S.B2 C1963) “| Re Michigan Sopveme Covtt Was s opposed +o remand +h case bacle to tthe Mach gan \ Cours oF Rovea\s oak iAsitcoct sa For tee Micagan Cour® of Aopeal to vacate \Xs5 May B, 2er\ Nea _ ocdec at PrQre g Pootndk & see Attacked adlayit of Athenmmey Foun Ryrsky ak Paragraph & La aS pets Tremec enk-Hed +o A remand ond ee Pcople J eantner BAO Mer USE C1473) te Melee a Feshoenal yecord to €ftabish tre State eee RS Paved to Cliscloce Excapertory Drady Morrecta\ ke AtMorey Jenn Prrisks See Attacked Affadav.s of Jorn Yaysle: Was tHe Michigan Sopreme Couct dea so dene petriener Deley Appteston foc lewe to Appeal contaryy to thet gwar eStabesy loo in peopl coed RAG Moh USl C1973) pet tener Was Jered © Que oreces to Malce % teStinernia\ Cicer d Fee atter res Tons Pry