Whether the lower court improperly applied prosecutorial discretion standards in denying post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 2) Can (In Complete Comeast to wei | Eshaslisueo U.S. Supeeae Court AND other States Appellate Coyets) Wasuinig fea) State Tgmeee with Tmpuady, AN American) Boe Chzeis DE Pescess Rights Pedlectes By V.&. Const. Amenos.V ,VI,€,XUE . “Beavy. Desteuchon oF Favoeagle Eviwence ‘Upal Request“ "Steciland — Goveenments ache peevend}on of “Keasouasle Trvestyatan By Defense Casnst\. “Fare Teel ano “EPlec hive Assistance — Wty THE O@DERED Desteuchon’ of Sue Enos — AEGED ‘Ceime Scene Contain ing, All Gatheezo Euvence Dues XHE Couesé oF tne Cemwal Tavestigata , 3 Das Atlee Defease ‘PeEseeualionry Dewanns for All Matezals Mews By fue Police Ace Pecpeely Fileo win tue Covet, 2) CAN THE Vera\ Court Comoone THIS Level of Total Desteuchen oF Euwene wueee 2 Sepnente “Aguse of Disceehans” AcE Reasonasly Queshianed in HS Weonsful Decisian) 40 Dewy Mobo To Dismiss unpee “Nowe Blood * z . 3) Can the Appeilate System Tynore “ Stanoaen of Rewew * Ano Rebuse te Aopazss A Decl Qoeshon of “Desse of Disceetion"® bo Agply Weens, Legal Stanoaed AND, Treat wit A Compicte \Wei o£ AckniowlEoge ment ue Seno Dieect Queshan of Aguse of . Deceetoan je Employ Ween Legal TEst, By Rolug das Untenmele. Gowns iN Favor oF AN Fupoplhcagic StotvFE Kew 764.030, » Artroe rus tHe Vesteuctians of Pot EWally Exculoateey EUWen « Tw Dowis, So, Cohn, An) Twnppteasle Yeecedet to doskly Nepliegens, BND Tacompelen Pole PECHRMANCE , AND Teyoriagy Case. Mees 2 A) No Ewenest Effiets Mace to peesseve SEE US, V Bayawt Supen. B®) Dastevchan) of Exachty SpecMeally Requested Maleeia(s. ” ¢) No, Pproe Nokce or Petcton to A PlANWED /OedEred Dispobrhon . DY No Reasonmale oppoatovly" Alowan Qe MO Reasonnale Tvestigatan, IN Oeree to Pule No Bao Fadh “AGee" Ruliwg Pokewkinlly Ercolonory Evwvene was Fnoces Desteoyed +