Whether the effect on due process remains unchanged as to Brady's holding

QUESTIONS PRESENTED “The Legislature finds and declares that postconviction discovery promotes the fair administration of justice in seeking to assure that innocent persons do not remain unjustly incarcerated” (California Statutes 2018 Chapter 482, Section 1) Justice Holmes: “For those who agree with me, no distinction can be taken between the Government as prosecutor and the Government as judge.” (Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 470 (1928)) “(S]tate action within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment... governs any action ... ‘whether through its legislature, through its courts, or through its executive or administrative officers.” (Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 113 (1935)) The questions presented are: 1. Whether the effect on due process remains unchanged as to Brady’s holding, “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material” after the prosecutor concealed the evidence at trial and suppresses it again upon request after conviction. 2. Whether a state court has discretion under the Fourteenth Amendment to assist the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request” when presented proof the existing “evidence is material”. 3. Whether arbitrary state judicial procedures impairing the ability to prove one is innocent conform with due process while intending to deprive this Court of a record to review. 4. Whether a due process sanction of dismissal . applies to situations like the present. : ii STATEMENT OF