Whether the Second Circuit's affirmation of Mr. Green's conviction, despite overwhelming evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, violates due process and established legal precedents regarding the reliability of evidence?

1) WHETHER, THE SECOND CIRCUIT ’S AFFIRMATION OF MR. GREEN’ S CONVICTION, DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT INVOLVING THE USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS, UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY FROM OFFICER SISCO, AND THE FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AS ESTABLISHED IN BRADY V. MARYLAND AND NAPUE V. ILLINOIS, WHERE THE PROSECUTION MUST REFRAIN FROM MISLEADING THE JURY AND MUST ENSURE THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS NOT ONLY TRUTHFUL BUT ALSO RELIABLE? 2) DOES THE FAILURE OF TRIAL COUNSEL TO MOVE FOR SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING AN CONSTITUTIONAL STOP-AND-FRISK, WHERE THE STATE DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE SUSPICION AND WHERE THE BRONX COUNTY SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGED A PATTERN OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, AS ESTABLISHED IN STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 688 (1984), WARRANTING REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE STANDARDS?