Is the continuing duty to disclose material impeachment evidence regarding critical state's witnesses pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) violated when a defendant proves that the local prosecutor's office and the Attorney General withheld material impeachment evidence at trial, direct appeal, post-conviction, and habeas proceedings?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Johnny Johnson was charged with the first-degree murder of six-year-old Casey Williamson. Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with schizophrenia as young as sixteen. It is undisputed that Mr. Johnson has been severely mentally ill his entire life — and was in the throes of psychosis at the time of this tragic crime. Mr. Johnson’s guilt is likewise undisputed. What is in dispute is whether his psychosis was the result of drugs or schizophrenia, and whether it rendered Mr. Johnson unable to coolly reflect before committing this tragic crime. At trial, Mr. Johnson presented a defense of diminished capacity, obviating his ability to coolly reflect during the crime. Making him guilty only of seconddegree murder, Mr. Johnson would not have been eligible for the death penalty. To combat this defense, the prosecution used the reports and opinions of one courtappointed psychologist, Stephen Becker, and the testimony of another, Byron English. The prosecution, however, never disclosed to the defense that Becker had a criminal conviction prior to trial. During post-conviction, neither the prosecution nor the Attorney General disclosed this conviction, Becker’s numerous subsequent felony convictions, nor English’s workplace misconduct, all of which led to both men’s professional licenses being revoked. Both the local prosecutor and the Attorney General relied on Becker and English’s opinions to secure and maintain Mr. Johnson’s death sentence at every stage of litigation. Based on the foregoing facts, this case presents the following question: Is the continuing duty to disclose material impeachment evidence regarding critical state’s witnesses pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) violated when a defendant proves that the local prosecutor’s office and the Attorney General withheld material impeachment evidence at trial, direct appeal, post-conviction, and habeas proceedings? i