Whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated the respondent's due process rights and constitutional protections

estions PresenwTEe . [. Does Evidence ThaTwas ww the STATE’ Possession: An Af tidauit Signed by The PnosecuTor: feconded Exiclence in Doctoe’s MoTE; Awd RANSce ptsFfeom Fhelimmaey hearing, ThAT WAS Known AbouT befo tial, buT “nol presente AT Trial whicl shows the SMITE Elicitedt ___ false pnd Peejueted te (mony PERLaWwing -+to-the femoual of (onsenT, Shouos the state Cniled to coenect the fake testimony, and TRiat pctroeniey Psiled fo Contest THE False Evidence meeT the Standavdal A misca 14 € oFdustice ov the ACual Lnnocence Quite Way to xicuse Qnmunds OnE, Tico, And THREE f C. Un THE RESO dent cin in Fede ib bunt fon The 2s imé ha _Gfouncd One } the STATE Knowingly failed to Coane false and Pee ured estimony b e Allesed Victim is p nocedurol|y clofau Med , When __ e KespondenT Ai 24 1H Cenk Lhe “ ause Anet P al dd 2) EKCE FEY, Ex Cusing the 4nound | 2 O21a wo STE (ounT Proceeding € 3. Cow APPEll Te ATIOewey's ineflectiveness'D iin ise A clai . peci cally prosecutorial misconcucl tha eons Knowing hy CA ed to Corned a e Avid pee |unec tes 1m Meo A eseck wicty 2 MEF 2 Excep Hon of duse And fhejud p EXcusin enound ONE? o LS fosTnvicTion bun ELINE Fc: IVE for Failingto Ralse clin s AgaLasT. Phra __ArToeNey,’ Foie Fat ing to OBJECTOR TmpeacH, Peejured Ond False testimony ot the |Mleced ictims specifically the Removal oF Conseil And AcTions QO E¢he _ PettHoner | vohich should have been Quised in the [nital Review ‘collateral Pnoceeding EV THE Exception under Mart wez VU. Ryw. . p v