In a post-conviction proceeding, was Mr. Middleton's right to due process violated when the Nevada state courts failed to consider exculpatory evidence presented in prior habeas petitions in their threshold determination of an actual-innocence gateway claim, thereby erroneously failing to grant him formal discovery of evidence in exclusive possession of the State?

QUESTION PRESENTED (CAPITAL CASE) In this capital case, petitioner David Middleton presented the Nevada state courts with a colorable claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence that undermines the State’s evidentiary presentation against him. Mr. Middleton has shown that the evidence that connected him to the murder victim was untrustworthy based on the false, misleading, and unreliable testimony of key trial witnesses. Further, Mr. Middleton has demonstrated that the forensic evidence connecting him to the murder victim was unreliable. Despite this evidence, the Nevada state courts dismissed the claims without an evidentiary hearing or discovery because the courts failed to consider the totality of the evidence Mr. Middleton presented, pursuant to this Court’s decision in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). Additionally, during the pendency of Mr. Middleton’s appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, the State disclosed forensic test results that proved items of women’s apparel that Mr. Middleton had in his possession and which the State linked to the murder victim did not belong to her. However, the State failed to conduct forensic testing on additional items of women’s apparel that were explicitly linked to the victim at trial. Despite the fact that Mr. Middleton had a procedure available to him to conduct DNA testing of biological evidence, when Mr. Middleton requested to test the additional items, the Nevada state courts denied his request, in violation of his due process rights. ‘ The questions presented are: 1. In a post-conviction proceeding, was Mr. Middleton’s right to due process violated when the Nevada state courts failed to consider exculpatory evidence presented in prior habeas petitions in their threshold determination of an actual-innocence gateway claim, thereby erroneously failing to grant him formal discovery of evidence in exclusive possession of the State? 2. Was Mr. Middleton’s right to procedural due process violated when the Nevada state courts arbitrarily denied him access to biological evidence for the purposes of conducting DNA testing to prove his innocence? ii